.357 mag FMJ

[Daddy Warcrimes]

Common wisdom (not necessarily true but..) tells me that for expansion: hollow point>semi-jacket flat tip>FMJ. For penetration: FMJ>semi-jacket flat tip>hollow point.

The .357 magnum seems to be best known for it's penetration. I figure since I can't get anything like a discarding sabot round with a fin stabilized depleted uranium penetrator, a 158 grain FMJ bullet is going to give me the most commercially available penetration.
This is the ammo I'm looking at.

The purpose of this ammo for me would be self defense against large non-person targets such as bear, moose, Ford Explorer, and the very rare goblin with body armor and a 2" skull (rendering headshots impractical for one of my skill level).

So, is there any real value in getting FMJ for a .357 mag? Is the difference in penetration even noteworthy (experience with other ammo types should be applicable)? Do I really need to worry about a .357 not penetrating something I might need dead?

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[craze]

You're on the right track for max penetration from the .357mag. witih your chosen load.

Personally I feel the .357 mag in any loading is underpowered for bear and moose (black bear maybe). For this type of application I consiceder the .44 mag with a hard cast bullet the minimum.

[Sam Douthit]

Isn't this getting into the realm of so-called "cop killer" bullets that are made to penetrate bullet resistant vests. We all know that the most innocuous hunting rifle will penetrate most body armor. The teflon bullets which were lauded to penetrate the vests were banned by mostly ammo makers as I understand it.

[nn]

Isn't this getting into the realm of so-called "cop killer" bullets that are made to penetrate bullet resistant vests. We all know that the most innocuous hunting rifle will penetrate most body armor. The teflon bullets which were lauded to penetrate the vests were banned by mostly ammo makers as I understand it.

No, NJ you have to carry solids, some .357's do not like solid lead and require FMJ or Semi jackets to function reliably.

[dimmak]

What about a 454 Casull.....
They penetrate very well indeed and are not as cost prohibitive now that the 500 and 460 (which will chamber and fire the 454) are on the mkt...

[Daddy Warcrimes]

I found the .44 not pleasant to shoot, but tolerable. I test fired 1 box and that was enough for the day. If I lived in a state that actually had bears, I'd probably get a .44.

The .454 has limited appeal to me, but more than the .500 because of it's ammo interchangability. Something about bleeding from the forehead makes me shy away from the uber-calibers.

[Tros]

Wuss


lol

[Daddy Warcrimes]

Wuss


lol

Oh that does it. Now I have to get one.

[Daddy Warcrimes]

So, who makes a good .454? Preferably one with a muzzle brake.

[Tros]

I'd ask that question in the "General Firearms" section, or whatever it's called. (That is, of course, if nobody answers you on this thread) :)

[Alaskan454]

So, who makes a good .454? Preferably one with a muzzle brake.

My primary carry is a Ruger Super Redhawk Alaskan in 454 - 2.5" barrel. It is a heavy beast (45 ounces not including ammo) but such weight is required to keep the recoil manageable. In all honesty, if you shoot the stuff you're likely to find at your local gun store or show, it has less kick than a standard 4" 44 magnum. The first time I shot it was with some of this stuff, and I was quite disappointed. Then I shot a cylinder of 300gr Gold Dots. Much more like it, but equally manageable as the 44. You won't do double-taps with it, but if you're used to heavy recoil, follow-ups are pretty quick.