Does anyone know the specifics as to why the FBI decided the 180gr .40 cal (10mm) JHP @ 950 fps was superior? Were the 9mm and .45 cal JHP at the time not fitting the parameters set and has technology made it moot today?
Also, keep in mind that the document was written some time ago…
They seriously said the .357 Magnum = .38 Special except at longer ranges.
That happened.
Wow.
Incorrect, the article says that the difference in performance did not justify the “sound and fury” of firing it.
EEOC hires + full-house 10mm = injured limp wrists… :rolleyes:
That was seriously your takeaway?
This is written under the guise of scientific analysis. How do you quantify “sound and fury” such that those variables outweigh the performance difference between .357 and .38? There is NO comparison in performance.
The most prestigious law enforcement agency in the country just told you the .357 kicks too much and makes too much noise to care about the difference between it and the .38.
What an authority.
Talk about a conclusion in search of a methodology!
The .357 is essentially ignored.
“What’s the best load for a .357?”
“Who cares! The best .38 load’s pretty much the same thing.”
FBI said this.
If I read correctly, the FBI compaired the 180gr .40 cal to the 147gr 9mm and. 185 gr. 45cal and did not include other bullet types. I would think they would want to broaden the choices a bit. Concerning the noise vs. performance mentioned regarding the .357 vs. .38, I would think the same regarding the noise vs. performance with the .40 vs. .45… fair assesment?
What are you basing this on? Experts like Dr Roberts, Dr Fackler and Duncan McPherson have repeatedly shown that the differences in terminal ballistics between .38 Special and .357 Magnum are are such that the recoil and and muzzle flash of the .357 is not a worthwhile price to pay for the negligent gain. It’s the same with 9mm, .40 S&W and .45 ACP. The minute differences in terminal performance between these calibers is such that one is better off choosing a round that they shoot accurately and suits their likely engagement scenarios. As an example: the 9mm offers the weakest barrier penetration, but high magazine capacity in a manageable size. The .45 offers outstanding barrier penetration, but far less capacity unless you go with a gun that has a rather large grip. The .40 strikes a balance between the two. However, all of the service pistol calibers from .38 Special to .45 ACP offer relatively poor incapacitation potential and thus, one must decide what their priorities are when choosing from among them.
There’s a lot more to selecting a service pistol than just how fast its rounds leave the barrel. Agencies have to consider costs of equipment and ammunition. They have to address the needs of shooters with different builds and hand sizes. There should be commonality of caliber and platform in order to standardize training. Likely engagement scenarios will be taken into effect. For instance, highway patrol officers will likely be involved in gunfights in and around vehicles more so than an investigator from the EPA. Instead of focusing on the splitting of ballistic hairs, it’s better to choose a platform that can be fired accurately, suits likely engagement scenarios and offers an adequate magazine capacity for the task. If you feel that’s a .357 magnum, then so be it, but after several decades of testing by the FBI and other agencies that has not been the case in the .38 vs .357 comparisons. The FBI exhaustively tests ammunition scientifically. They examine OIS after action reports from across North America continually. They examine marksmanship in combat vs. the range. There is perhaps no other law enforcement agency in the world that has the extensive history and experience in such testing and examination as the FBI.
Reading here should shed some light on this subject:
If Bullet A has virtually identical penetration and expansion as Bullet B, but does it with less muzzle blast, flash, and recoil then what is the problem? Why wouldnt you go with Bullet A?
Then why is the FBI using the XM556FBIT3 in their M4’s?
.40 expansion and 17" or so penetration…
…FMJ .45ACP = superior?
more forces at work here than just that.
Noone is going out hunting deer with .38 SPL in their 357’s.
This is a good point.
People can bash the FBI all they want but their Firearms Training Unit helped develop many testing protocols and helped ammunition companies develop better performing loads. One bullet/caliber/gun cannot do all things great, the FBI has been able to develop some good ideas on what LEOs should expect from certIain loads, firearms, etc.
Bullet technology has increased dramatically since the first bullet tests and the advent of the 10mm.
Currently all handguns of the “regular” calibers are pretty much equal in performance. I don’t believe that was the case when the hydra shok was state of the art.
Comparing a pistol round to a rifle round is stupid. The rifle can take advantage of the TSC wounding effects, the pistol round cannot. The rifle round can defeat barriers and armor that that the pistol round cannot. However comparing the .38spec to .357mag, while trying to draw parallels to rifle to handgun is worse.
As for your claim that nobody hunts with .38spec, well, thats born of pure ignorance on your part. People here in Texas sucessfully hunt whitetail and axis deer with .38cspec in both handguns and rifles. I know people that hunt feral hogs with .38spec. Point being whether something “hits harder” doesnt mean a whole lot terminally.
You can’t compare handgun and rifles. Rifles, firing rifle rounds not pistol calibers, actually reach enough velocity that it matters.
Well then I cannot argue my ignorance on the matter of the .38spec/hunting.
However, I do think that the 38 spl is not as effective as the 357 Magnum.
The faster you push an object through a medium, the larger the permanent cavity will be.
Rarely is the cavity as large as the projectile itself regarding handgun velocity as you all have noted, when talking about flesh, as it is elastic. However, more velocity means less time for the flesh to move out of the way of the projectile, and more is thus destroyed/damaged by the faster bullet.
The final resting size of the projectiles is not fully indicative of the tissue destroyed–even if TSC is not taken advantage of fully as in rifle-rounds.
Further, the faster a projectile is moving, the more hydraulic force is actuated against the inside of the JHP’s cavity. This means more reliable expansion, especially when heavy clothing is involved.
Been a while since I browsed the pdf. What barrel lenght are they talking about? Out of shorter barrels it has been shown quite a bit that 38spl is close to 357 in terminal ballistics. And the extra kick from the 357 makes follow up shots and training harder so the 38 is preferred.
This mimic my understanding of the matter. In short I thought the .357 is only beneficial out of a longer barrel, and that the differences between the two (.38 / .357) wasn’t much in <4" barrels.