Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 6/5/2003 11:23:22 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/5/2003 11:33:12 PM EDT
I like Federal 125JHP in .357 and any of the 158gr LSWCHP +P loads in .38.
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 1:57:52 AM EDT
This is a question I have pondered many times myself and I still have no definitive answer regarding self defense ammo for a .357 magnum. The Evan Marshall crowd swears by the Fed 125 gr JHP while Dr. Gary Roberts seems to think the round has been hyped. I have seen tests performed with this load before and saw nothing overly impressive. From a 3" barrel, it penetrated about 11.75" and expanded to about .50". All of the better 9mm cartridges such as Speer Gold Dot, Winchester Ranger, Remington Golden Saber, etc perform better than this.

And when looking at street results, the California Highway Patrol had lots of failures to stop with this load, while the Kentucky State Police had excellent success with the same load. So who knows? LOL. This is the only caliber I ever saw where every test or opinion always has a contradiction. So I honestly don't know what's best. According to DocGKR though, he seems to favor the 145 gr Silvertip, as it provides the best penetration and expansion in tests. But this round also had an infamous failure in which a South Carolina trooper (Coates) was killed by a man during a traffic stop with a .22 while Coates' .357 with 6 rounds of Silvertips to the chest failed to kill or incapacitate his attacker. Doc really dislikes the .357 magnum round (and the .38 too) and thinks it isn't as great as it's been made out to be. And he is a smart man when it comes to terminal ballistics research.

I hope I haven't confused you more by posting this, but I have been searching for the best .357 magnum ammo for 3 years and have yet to get a conclusive answer one way or the other. Doc mentioned he may run some tests on various .357 ammo later this year, so you might wanna wait a while before buying a large quantity of anything. I will keep my eye out for his latest tests and will IM the info to you if I see anything conclusive. Otherwise, expect a different answer from each person you ask "what's best". LOL.

-Charging Handle
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 2:35:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
I like Federal 125JHP in .357 and any of the 158gr LSWCHP +P loads in .38.



I agree with Lumbp196, my second choice would be Speer Gold Dot in both calibers with 125gr HP.
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 3:02:02 AM EDT
One other thing I forgot to mention is that since the .357 magnum has largely been replaced in law enforcement by the 9mm, .40, .45 and .357 Sig, little testing has been done on .357 ammo in the past 10 years. There have been some new introductions that look promising, such as the mid-velocity Remington 125 gr Golden Saber and the 125 gr Speer Gold Dot. These loads perform well in 9mm caliber weapons and they may perform well in the .357 magnum. The Winchester Supreme Partition Gold 180 gr load is another interesting round that may have potential. But again, no actual testing has been done lately, therefore it's just guesswork trying to determine how they will perform.

I guess all that we can do is just pick a load that shoots well and practice, practice and practice some more. So long as penetration is adequate and shot placement is good, it can still be effective. FWIW, the US Navy SEALs carry a FMJ load in their Smith and Wesson 686's. But you can bet they can place them where they need to and I would bet they are very effective for them.
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 3:51:28 AM EDT
Lumps got it, the 125 grn 357 round, a long time best thing.
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 3:53:22 AM EDT
What Lumpy, SGB & cyanide said!
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 6:24:47 AM EDT
Guys, not to come across as being critical of your suggestions, but to those who are recommending the 125 gr Federal, what evidence are you basing it's performance on? Past police shootings? Hunting experience? Gel tests?

The reason I ask this question is because this load is often touted as being the best by guys like Evan Marshall and Massad Ayoob. Now I don't mean to be offensive to the Marshall and Sanow crowd, but his methods and statistics have been discredited by many people with experience in this area. There was once a thread in the ammo forum where all of this was debated, evidence presented and the general conclusion was that the Marshall and Sanow percentage ratings on stopping power were all a bunch of crap. Ask folks like Troy, Brouhaha, Tatjana or DocGKR who have a good understanding of ballistics research and they will tell you the same thing I am saying.

Now I have no idea what you are basing your opinions on, so that's why I mentioned this Marshall and Sanow stuff. This garbage is constantly printed in the gun rags as the literal truth when there is no statistician or ballistic researcher in the world who would support their methods. I just wanted to mention this to make sure that the 125 gr JHP recommendations weren't coming from this data alone. If you have real world experience or other data that originated from somewhere other than Marshall, Sanow, or Ayoob, then that's an entirely different matter and I would be very interested in hearing any info you have to share. Again, not a flame against you guys, just trying to make sure this M&S stuff isn't the sole decision for choosing this load. Many others with scientific backgrounds who have researched the performance of the 125 gr load have found it to be much less "devastating" than the 96% one shot stop rating Marshall assigns it.

I will close with a response made by Dr. Gary Roberts who probably has more experience testing ammunition than about anyone you could name. This is what he has to say about the Federal 125 gr load and the .357 in general. I hope someone finds it useful or at least a good read:

"During the early to mid 1980’s, like many people, I was duped by articles singing the praises of the .357 Mag 125 gr JHP. I carried a 4” 686 and a customized 3” M13 loaded with Fed 125 gr JHP. However, after going on active military duty and being in a position to test ammunition at the Letterman Army Institute of Research with Dr. Fackler, it became obvious that the .357 Magnum 125 gr JHP’s tended to have relatively shallow penetration, frequently fragmented with resultant decrease in permanent crush cavity, and had temporary cavities of insufficient size to contribute significantly to wounding. In addition, these loads had a large muzzle flash and blast, as well as a relatively harsh recoil which inhibited accuracy and re-engagement speed. As the FBI established a science based ammunition testing program, their research data also showed less than stellar performance from the lightweight .357 Mag loadings, including the 125 gr JHP’s. For those individuals who doubt evidence based research and prefer “street results”, the CHP, the largest agency to issue .357 Mag 125 gr JHP’s on the West Coast, clearly reports significantly better results in their officer involved shootings since switching to .40 S&W 180 gr JHP loadings, based on officer perception, objective crime scene measurements, as well as the physiological damage described in the relevant autopsy studies. Anecdotally, one need look no further than the failure of Trooper Coates’s .357 Mag 125 gr JHP’s to incapacitate the criminal who murdered him to dramatically illustrate the problems with this load.
At this time, I do not believe that the .357 Magnum is a good caliber choice for a primary duty, back-up, or self-defence weapon."
-DocGKR

This is certainly a different picture than Marshall and Sanow paint. Who's right? Only you can decide. I'll put my money on Fackler and Roberts though, based on how they gather, analyze and record data.

Thanks,

-Charging Handle
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 6:31:33 AM EDT
While they have realtively small sampling populations to work with, Sanow & Marshall's work is at least borne out by actual events as opposed to shooting sheep in the head or blocks of jello (yeah I know its actually "ballistic gelatin").

For a 357, Remingtons scalloped jacket 125 gr JHP.

For a 38 special + P, Federal 158 gr nyclad HP.
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 6:48:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/6/2003 6:57:00 AM EDT by Markbo]
I find it interesting that officer Coates was murdered with a .22 while his emptied .357 did nothing. I am guessing his attacker had a little chemical assistance in his system. I would be interested to know all the facts on that case.

Nice choice for a little car or bedside gun by the way. It wouldn't be my first choice for a CC gun, but that is just me-it would suit many people just fine.

This is all very good information and debate. I don't hear any arguing... yet. I have been a fan of the gold dot and saber ammo in several calibers based on my own very informal shooting tests of 1 gallon milk jugs.

For those that think 11" of penetration is not that great, I have always thought of it this way: This is not a hunt... I don't want to blow a big ole hole right through them and track them. I WANT all of that energy dumped into the target. I find it very difficult to believe that a single well placed shot of a 125g .357 center mass at combat distances will not seriously dissuade an attacker.

In fairness I am not familiar with Fackler and Roberts, but I am familiar with Marshall & Sanow and if I remember correctly, those were real world shooting events and statistics. Handle... just curious... how were those stats proved worthless? Being fairly new to this board, I missed that debate.

And the Strasbourgh tests should not be so summarily dismissed. The alternative of lining up and lung shooting human volunteers just wouldn't be PC...anywhere!(jk) and they did at least give side by side comparisons of a lot of different calibers and loads - apples to apples if you will.

The trouble with that test is that it is a bit old now and there are a lot of calibers and loads that were not tested that are very popular today. I for one would like to see another. For what it's worth, the testing on all .38 load testing was halted as every .38 load tested were deemed insufficient and inhumane, i.e. they did not kill the goats.

I carried a cylinder full of 158gr .38 Nyclads for many years. That has changed, but I for one would never feel puny with a full cylinder or the 125g golden sabers or gold dots. I WOULD however feel better with those same bullets in .40 or .357 Sig (my current pet favorite) with 10+1.

In the end, trigger control, sight alignment and well placed shots mean a lot more than which bullet you use.

Just my 2cents.
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 7:14:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/6/2003 7:15:37 AM EDT by anothergene]
Given the fact that this is a fixed sight gun, I feel IT should dictate what it likes...the best round would be kinda useless if it's thrown far left and low. At close range, fine, but any longer shots should be tested with a variety of ammo and find out what gets closest to point of aim. Plus, hitting where you point it is a confidence builder.
In other words, the best "manstopper" may not be the first choice, with adjustable sights, it would be another story.
OK guys, let it rip...how wrong am I?
Nice gun BTW Wave...I want one!
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 7:17:34 AM EDT
Actually that is a very good point. No matter what the choice, it must hit where aimed. Pick one that goes there or fix the sights to adjust to where your best round is going.. .either way that is a good point.

But then again, that was assumed on my part (I know, I know) as was assuming that this gun is in good condition and can shoot well. If not, then it is simply not a good candidate for a self defense arm.
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 8:01:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/6/2003 8:12:41 AM EDT by Charging_Handle]
For those who think Dr. Gary Roberts only bases his conclusions on jello and for those who make the argument that gel doesn't accurately represent what happens in actual human tissue, check out this quote from him in a recent thread on another forum discussing the 9mm Winchester 147 gr Ranger's performance:

"Handgun bullets, by their very nature, offer marginal performance. For every available load, single incidents can be found where they have failed. A scientifically valid analysis of a larger sample size is the best way to assess bullet field performance. For example, San Diego PD switched to the 9mm 147 gr JHP when their lighter weight, higher velocity 9mm 115 gr JHP bullets had several failures to penetrate deeply enough to create damage to vital organs in the torso and cause rapid incapacitation. The largest independently verified study of bullet penetration and expansion characteristics in living human tissue has shown the 9mm 147 gr JHP to offer acceptable performance in law enforcement lethal force confrontations. A senior criminalist with the San Diego P.D., Mr. Eugene J. Wolberg, has analyzed their 9 mm 147 gr JHP performance in 10% ordnance gelatin and compared the laboratory results with the actual terminal effects produced in human tissue in nearly 150 officer involved shootings with the San Diego Police Department. When I last spoke with Mr. Wolberg in May of 2000, the majority of their bullets had penetrated 13 to 15 inches and expanded between 0.60 to 0.62 inches in both human tissue and 10% ordnance gelatin. This appears to be ideal performance from a 9mm."

Does 150 shootings with the same department and same load sound like a small sampling? And this is only one of many cases he has studied or been connected to. It mentions nothing dealing with goats! Basically, he is comparing the performance in the lab to the results on the streets and finding that they are identical. Gel was created to simulate the wounds found in humans and it was determined by Dr. Martin Fackler that 10% ordnance gel was the closest simulant. Gel was not created as the best medium for a bullet to expand in, it was created to replicate wounds found in humans.

Also, I hear the mention of energy being "dumped" into the target. Energy transfer to the target has nothing to do with terminal performance! The only thing that affects terminal performance is the depth in which the bullet penetrates and how big the hole is that it makes. That's it. What determines whether or not a threat is stopped is whether or not there is a CNS hit or a hit to an area that causes massive blood loss. If a bullet penetrates deep enough and expands robustly, you have a better change of damaging those structures that will take an attacker out of the fight. I saw a video where a man testing a ballistic vest capable of defeating rifle rounds fired a round of .308 Winchester into his partner who was wearing the vest at point blank range. Now as stupid as this stunt was, it demonstrated what little effect energy has on stopping power. While the bullet did not penetrate, it did transfer all of it's energy to the target, yet it didn't even unbalance the guy. Many folks have the belief that taking a hit from a gun will knock you down. This is fantasy created in Hollywood and nothing more. If a person falls as a result of a gunshot wound it is either because they are dropping dead or they are psychologically conditioned to do so.

Penentration is not that important? The FBI set a standard of 12" of penetration as a minimum for their service rounds. It has been discovered that 12" of penetration may be necessary in some cases to reach the vitals or CNS systems. An attacker will not always present you a straight in shot to their torso where less penetration would be sufficient. Instead, people move, they crouch, they hunt cover. You may be required to shoot at an odd angle where the round will be required to penetrate an arm, then enter the side and travel through the lungs before reaching the heart, spine or major blood vessels. This is where the penetration standard comes into play. Again, taking a route such as the one I just described involves much more distance than a straight in shot. One must also factor in barriers between you and the target....in other words, the cover your attacker will be seeking if he has any sense. Energy dump is not gonna save you. Adequate penetration and the size of the wound channel/damage created by the bullet are the only two factors that will physically stop a threat. One other possibility, the psychological reaction to being shot is another factor. Some people simply don't like being hit and will give up the fight even without being mortally wounded. These are rational people who value their life and hate pain. But this is not a measurable reaction and as such cannot be counted on to work. Someone who is enraged, under the influence of drugs or alcohol or someone emotionally or mentally disturbed may not be phased by anything less than a fatal wound....i.e. Platt and Maddox in the 1986 FBI shootout in Miami. Those guys didn't stop fighting until they were killed, despite being hit by numerous times. Again, these people weren't rational and if someone is attacking you, chances are they won't be in a rational state either.

Now for those who want to see how the Marshall and Sanow data is flawed, here are some various reading I suggest that don't just prove they are wrong....it screams it! Here ya go, enjoy:

www.firearmstactical.com/streetstoppers.htm

www.firearmstactical.com/sanow-strikes-out.htm

www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-discrepancies.htm

www.firearmstactical.com/undeniable-evidence.htm

www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-statistical-analysis.htm

I could not locate the thread that was posted here on ar15.com, as the search feature I have only goes back about 30 days. This took place over a year ago if memory serves me. But the links I provided you will show without a doubt that not only is the Marshall and Sanow data flawed, it also shows how they deliberately distort data to reflect what they want it to! And to just take this a step further, Marshall does not allow anyone to post links to outside forums on his website. If a user does so he/she will be banned! What does that tell you? It tells me he doesn't want his followers to hear any of this information or be forced to debate his findings with that of others. Marshall and Sanow are frauds.

While this thread has grown away from it's original purpose (sorry about that Wave), I felt it necessary to debunk the myths and misconceptions that have been thrust upon us by this M&S BS. Afterall, I too was once a believer in this crap until I was shown the light. I realize I have been somewhat argumentative and blunt in this discussion but I want you all to know I mean no disrespect to any of you. In fact, the only reason I took the time to start this discussion was out of respect for you folks....fellow shooters. I don't want to see any of you folks injured or killed because of someone else's flawed crap written to sell books. If I have offended anyone, I apologize to you now. That was not my intention.

-Charging Handle
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 8:59:37 AM EDT
Thanks very much for your input and especially the links. I will read up more on those when I get a chance. No offense meant, none taken
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 9:18:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/6/2003 9:28:16 AM EDT by Wave]
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 10:05:34 AM EDT
What little I have read so far is very interesting. Thank you George for bringing these articles to our attention.

I am feeling a little silly right now. Like I have been the victim of a con that everyone knew about but me!

More reading is in order I think!
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 10:23:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By KODoc:
While they have realtively small sampling populations to work with, Sanow & Marshall's work is at least borne out by actual events as opposed to shooting sheep in the head or blocks of jello (yeah I know its actually "ballistic gelatin").



Charging Handle is right on. Any of Sanow & Marshall's data that represents reality is purely coincedental.

It has been proven they have fabricated data and information in several articles (see below for references & online copies).

People like Dr Fackler and Dr. Roberts do testing in Ballistic Gelatine to predict a bullets capability. Those test are then backed up with autopsies to correlate the accuracies of the findings. Their methods are the best in science and their findings, methods, AND DATA are published for peer review.

Unfortunetly M&S methodoligies have been discredited and they have never submitted their data for peer review making it highly suspect in the first place.

MacPherson, Duncan: "Sanow Strikes (Out) Again." Wound Ballistics Review, 3(1): 32-35; 1997.

van Maanen, Maarten: "Discrepancies in the Marshall & Sanow 'Data Base': An Evaluation Over Time." Wound Ballistics Review, 4(2); 9-13: Fall, 1999.

Fackler, Martin L., MD.: "Undeniable Evidence." Wound Ballistics Review, 4(2); 14-15: Fall, 1999.

MacPherson, Duncan: "The Marshall & Sanow 'Data' - Statistical Analysis Tells the Ugly Story." Wound Ballistics Review, 4(2); 16-21: Fall, 1999.

Dodson, Shawn: "Reality of the Street? A Practical Analysis of Offender Gunshot Wound Reaction for Law Enforcement." Tactical Briefs, 4(2); April 2001

You can find briefs on these articles here:
www.firearmstactical.com/streetstoppers.htm

www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-discrepancies.htm

www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-statistical-analysis.htm
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 10:24:30 AM EDT
The above references come from here:
www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm

This page covers more than M&S and includes some great primers on the science of terminal ballistics.
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 11:33:50 AM EDT
While the .357 Magnum is not the Ray of Death that many have promoted it to be (no handgun caliber is), you are going to have a hard time convincing me its completely ineffective.

Its certainly not my #1 choice, but thats because Ive determined a different caliber and pistol are whats optimum for me.
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 12:48:17 PM EDT
Gentlemen... thank you again for your input. These writings have really opened my eyes. I honestly had no idea that I had been duped by what amounts to salesmen - and if not with the complete knowledge of, at least the duplicity of the popular gun press.

I will have to completely rethink what I simply believed to be truths. To think that the Strasbourg tests and the one-shot-stops date were complete fabrications just floors me. What an incredible amount of work, just to deceive people!

I guess I have some light/fast ammo that just became range ammo instead of primary usage ammo.
Link Posted: 6/6/2003 7:00:11 PM EDT
Before anyone goes throwing away their defense ammo or weapons, let me say this....just because Marshall and Sanow give a particular bullet a high rating doesn't necessarily make it bad. Evan actually recommends a few loads that do perform well in all forms of testing and on the street. For instance, many of the Speer Gold Dot and Remington Golden Saber loads, especially in 9mm and .40 S&W and in some cases .45 ACP, do have a good following in the scientific community as well.

But some of his recommendations just don't add up when placed under the microscope. For example, his high ranking of the Federal Hydra-Shok .45 ACP as a 95% one shot stopper. In tests, this load only expands about half the time in bare gel! This from a 5" barrel. And through clothing it will suffer even worse. The Winchester Ranger ammo is built to expand even from shorter barrels, through multiple layers of clothing and is far more consistent in expanding than the Hydra-Shok. Yet Evan still to this day claims the Hydra-Shok is the ebst bullet in existence. Well, if anyone believes that after looking at the data out there, I have some beachfront property in Arizona I will sell for a very good price!

Now back to Wave's original question. I see you have picked the Corbon because it is accurate and that is very important. Afterall, in order to be effective, you must hit what you are shooting at. But I can't honestly say what it's performance looks like as I have seen no scientific test data on this particular round But like I said, Dr. Roberts said that if he gets some spare time and gel, he will try to run some tests on .357 ammo. The Winchester Supreme Partition Gold 180 gr JHP loading is looking very promising in some initial expansion testing. I saw a test where a guy fired a variety of .357 loads into water and he said this one expanded better than any of them. But although water will be a good indicator of maximum expansion ability, it isn't accurate in terms of penetration or the expansion you will likely see in gel or tissue. Therefore until I see some conclusive evidence, I will not make any assumptions as to how good this load may be. I don't want to hype a round that I am yet unsure about. But hopefully some actual testing will be performed sometime in the not too distant future and if so, I will post the results here ASAP.

In the meantime, for those seeking true ammo performance data that can be backed up and that's credible, check out some of these following websites:

www.firearmstactical.com

www.ammolab.com

And for Dr. Gary Robert's message board.....

www.tacticalforums.com


-Charging Handle
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 4:50:58 PM EDT
Very interesting articles.

Thanks for providing them!

Now, for reasons completely unrelated to M&S conclusions, I maintain my preference for my previously stated loads!

On a practical note for those who carry K frame S&Ws as I once did, we're between a rock and a hard place when it comes to practice ammunition. The incentive to practice with 38 spl is there because the recoil won't punish the K frame as a steady diet of 357 magnums will. The problem lies in the fire-scoring of the chambers over time. When full-house defensive 357 rounds are fired they fire form to the chamber making extraction sometimes difficult.
Link Posted: 6/17/2003 6:11:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KODoc:
On a practical note for those who carry K frame S&Ws as I once did, we're between a rock and a hard place when it comes to practice ammunition.... When full-house defensive 357 rounds are fired they fire form to the chamber making extraction sometimes difficult.



First time all thread I've been able to offer *something*! Of course, that's only if you handload.

My wife & I tend to practice alot with our S&W M19s and I got *really* sick of scrubbing chambers afterwards. I found that 5.4 grains of W231 behind 158gr heads in a .357 case nearly duplicated my factory Winchester .38 +P LSWCHP rounds. Less recoil/frame wear than .357s without the usual .38 Special crud. It's working for me, anyway.

Btw, nice addition, Wave!
Link Posted: 6/18/2003 8:44:16 AM EDT
I just got some .38spl +P 125gr lead hollowpoints.

Reason being, is I'm in an apartment, and I don't want excessive penetration if I have to discharge the weapon in a defensive situation.

Link Posted: 6/18/2003 10:39:19 AM EDT
Wave, my personal choice in .357 would be any form of 125 gr. Gold Dot load, my choice being Pro Load. Also 125 gr. Golden Saber's.
Link Posted: 6/18/2003 11:18:56 AM EDT
IVE NEVER HEARD(READ) SO MANY HAIR SPLITING COMMENTS.The .357 is an excellent fight stoper,probably only bested by the .45acp and not by much.
as far asim concerned the ray of death is a good dicription of the .357 round out of a a 4-6 inch tube its hard to beat
Link Posted: 6/18/2003 8:41:08 PM EDT
Anyone ever try using meplat (think that's what it's called) type bullets? I would think the half jacket/soft flat nosed lead would give you reliable expansion and good penetration. Any thoughts?
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 9:39:06 AM EDT
The meplat is actually the flat frontal area on any flatnose type bullet.
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 10:05:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Markbo:
I find it interesting that officer Coates was murdered with a .22 while his emptied .357 did nothing. I am guessing his attacker had a little chemical assistance in his system. I would be interested to know all the facts on that case.

Just my 2cents.



In the video synopsis I saw recounting that incident, they made several comments about Trooper Coates and the SCHP carrying ".357 magnum revolvers". What they said far fewer times, 1 time IIRC, was that the .357 magnum revolver was loaded with .38 SPL +P, can't remember the bullet type.
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 11:47:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:

Originally Posted By Markbo:
I find it interesting that officer Coates was murdered with a .22 while his emptied .357 did nothing. I am guessing his attacker had a little chemical assistance in his system. I would be interested to know all the facts on that case.

Just my 2cents.



In the video synopsis I saw recounting that incident, they made several comments about Trooper Coates and the SCHP carrying ".357 magnum revolvers". What they said far fewer times, 1 time IIRC, was that the .357 magnum revolver was loaded with .38 SPL +P, can't remember the bullet type.



I have the video. They were using 125 gr Federal JHP .357's. The moral of the story is, NO bullet is a magic wonder round, and you can die from a .22 just as good as a .44. Trooper Coates made a couple of small tactical errors as well. All 5 rounds in the suspects chest missed a vital organ by less than 1/4 inch each.
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 12:38:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Hawkeye:


I have the video. They were using 125 gr Federal JHP .357's. The moral of the story is, NO bullet is a magic wonder round, and you can die from a .22 just as good as a .44. Trooper Coates made a couple of small tactical errors as well. All 5 rounds in the suspects chest missed a vital organ by less than 1/4 inch each.



I don't know who made your video, but the one I saw CLEARLY states .38 spl +P ammo, in .357 magnum revolvers. I believe the video was made by LETN
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 2:22:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:

Originally Posted By Hawkeye:


I have the video. They were using 125 gr Federal JHP .357's. The moral of the story is, NO bullet is a magic wonder round, and you can die from a .22 just as good as a .44. Trooper Coates made a couple of small tactical errors as well. All 5 rounds in the suspects chest missed a vital organ by less than 1/4 inch each.



I don't know who made your video, but the one I saw CLEARLY states .38 spl +P ammo, in .357 magnum revolvers. I believe the video was made by LETN



Same one. Maybe I am wrong. I seem to be a lot lately. I'll pull it out and watch it tonight if I can to double check.
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 2:34:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Hawkeye:

Same one. Maybe I am wrong. I seem to be a lot lately. I'll pull it out and watch it tonight if I can to double check.



They make a lot of references to the .357 magnum revolver.

They mention the ammo right around the time the shoot out is taking place. They say .38 spl +P, but then really make up some adjectives to describe the actual round. It is right where the talk about going to .40 cals. during the film.
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 12:48:53 PM EDT
I sport the 158gr JHPs in my S&W 686, 4" barrel. I feel confident they'll do the trick. I usually practice with the lighter JHPs and FMJs.
Top Top