.357 and minimum barrel length? - Page 2

WESHOOT2 · October 18, 2008, 07:51 AM

I'm with Nanuk.

Except I launch from GP100s and one Redhawk.......and I try to never use bullets weighing less than 125g (although I may still have a few thousand 110g JHPs laying around....).

For my wife's S&W 38 I load the 140g XTP-HP; it's a lack-of-velocity-so-I-want-more-weight thing.

B.N.Real · October 18, 2008, 08:35 AM

Smith makes a Model 60-15 with a three inch barrel that's a great compromise between barrel length and a gun small enough to concealed carry .

Most people including shooters with decades of experience don't care to shoot or carry snub 357 mag revolvers.

Too much flash,noise and recoil.

wnycollector · October 18, 2008, 09:13 AM

My smallest .357 is a 2.75" Ruger Security Six. It is the smallest .357 that I can shoot well with full bore .357 loadings. Plus with the 2.75" barrel you get a full length extractor! If you pick high quality SD ammo (BuffaloBore, corbon and DT etc), the flash and large velocity loss can be kept to a minimum.

bikerbill · October 18, 2008, 11:57 AM

I have both a 4-inch 686+ S&W and a 2-inch Taurus 617 ... I don't carry either, but on range days, the 686 gets whatever .357 rounds I'm shooting and the Taurus takes .38s. The kick is just too hard to be enjoyable for long with .357s from a 2-inch barrel. If I needed to carry the Taurus, I'd probably use .38 +ps, which are tolerable from a 2-inch barrel. Everything I've read says that the longer the barrel, all things being equal, the faster the bullet is going when it leaves the muzzle.

03Shadowbob · October 19, 2008, 05:07 AM

+P rounds out of my 642 produces more muzzle flip and about the same amount of perceived recoil as my 2.25" SP101 .357 with 125gr.
I'll grab my sp101 over the 642 most days but there are some days I am glad to carry the lighter weight 642.

funon1 · October 19, 2008, 10:05 AM

Although, I think 4" is about ideal for the .357, the shorter barrels still produce enough velocity to provide far greater penetration and expansion than the .38 out of a 2". With a good grip and an all steel frame, the .357 is suprisingly controllable too. I don't think there is any question about the greater effectiveness of the .357 as you are only losing 50-100 fps out of a quality gun. the same length barrels in different guns can vary that much in many instances.

In short, the .38 does not replace a .357, but the .38 does have it's place, which to me, is in the airweights in close quarters.

Funon1

Don P · October 20, 2008, 11:27 AM

Quote:

The 38 special hurts and makes people angry when shot with it, the 357 STOPS them.

With this said, I guess a 22lr

just would be a waste or they would just laugh at you. I carry a 649 and for follow-up reasons I use 38spl's. Just me of coarse.

October 18, 2008, 07:51 AM	#26
WESHOOT2 Senior Member Join Date: February 20, 1999 Location: home on the range; Vermont (Caspian country) Posts: 14,324	choice I'm with Nanuk. Except I launch from GP100s and one Redhawk.......and I try to never use bullets weighing less than 125g (although I may still have a few thousand 110g JHPs laying around....). For my wife's S&W 38 I load the 140g XTP-HP; it's a lack-of-velocity-so-I-want-more-weight thing. __________________ . "all my ammo is mostly retired factory ammo"

October 18, 2008, 11:57 AM	#29
bikerbill Senior Member Join Date: September 19, 2007 Location: Lago Vista TX Posts: 2,425	I have both a 4-inch 686+ S&W and a 2-inch Taurus 617 ... I don't carry either, but on range days, the 686 gets whatever .357 rounds I'm shooting and the Taurus takes .38s. The kick is just too hard to be enjoyable for long with .357s from a 2-inch barrel. If I needed to carry the Taurus, I'd probably use .38 +ps, which are tolerable from a 2-inch barrel. Everything I've read says that the longer the barrel, all things being equal, the faster the bullet is going when it leaves the muzzle. __________________ "The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants." Albert Camus

October 19, 2008, 10:05 AM	#31
funon1 Senior Member Join Date: May 28, 2007 Location: WA state Posts: 361	Terminal effectiveness Although, I think 4" is about ideal for the .357, the shorter barrels still produce enough velocity to provide far greater penetration and expansion than the .38 out of a 2". With a good grip and an all steel frame, the .357 is suprisingly controllable too. I don't think there is any question about the greater effectiveness of the .357 as you are only losing 50-100 fps out of a quality gun. the same length barrels in different guns can vary that much in many instances. In short, the .38 does not replace a .357, but the .38 does have it's place, which to me, is in the airweights in close quarters. Funon1 __________________ No Jesus, no peace. Know Jesus, know peace.

October 18, 2008, 08:35 AM	#27
B.N.Real Senior Member Join Date: February 22, 2008 Posts: 4,092	Smith makes a Model 60-15 with a three inch barrel that's a great compromise between barrel length and a gun small enough to concealed carry . Most people including shooters with decades of experience don't care to shoot or carry snub 357 mag revolvers. Too much flash,noise and recoil.

October 18, 2008, 09:13 AM	#28
wnycollector Senior Member Join Date: April 22, 2007 Posts: 1,996	My smallest .357 is a 2.75" Ruger Security Six. It is the smallest .357 that I can shoot well with full bore .357 loadings. Plus with the 2.75" barrel you get a full length extractor! If you pick high quality SD ammo (BuffaloBore, corbon and DT etc), the flash and large velocity loss can be kept to a minimum.

October 19, 2008, 05:07 AM	#30
03Shadowbob Senior Member Join Date: August 8, 2006 Location: South Florida Posts: 176	+P rounds out of my 642 produces more muzzle flip and about the same amount of perceived recoil as my 2.25" SP101 .357 with 125gr. I'll grab my sp101 over the 642 most days but there are some days I am glad to carry the lighter weight 642.