145 grain Winchester Silvertip .357 Magnum HP gelatin performance

I have seen NUMERICAL expansion and penetration data for 145 grain Winchester Silvertip .357 Magnum HP, but have not found actual pictures of gelatin performance or expanded bullets taken from the gelatin. This load was reportedly tested in at least some parts of either the FBI or IWBA test protocols. Does anyone know where this data could be? I have the FBI - BRF data from when I was in the IWBA, is it in that database? I also have all hard copies of the IWBA - WBR journals.

Appreciate any info...

-Ron Jones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glock17JHP

I have seen NUMERICAL expansion and penetration data for 145 grain Winchester Silvertip .357 Magnum HP, but have not found actual pictures of gelatin performance or expanded bullets taken from the gelatin. This load was reportedly tested in at least some parts of either the FBI or IWBA test protocols. Does anyone know where this data could be? I have the FBI - BRF data from when I was in the IWBA, is it in that database? I also have all hard copies of the IWBA - WBR journals.

Appreciate any info...

-Ron Jones.

---

Apologies that I do not know where to access such information, but I have recently heard from @jetfire and @JonInWA that recent and current production Winchester ammunition is lacking in QC. Sounds like reliability issues. I purchased 120 rounds of new production Silvertip .357 and only learned this afterwards. I suppose it's relegated to practice ammo only for me now, but I'd rather wait until I get a dedicated trainer GP100 to shoot it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glock17JHP

I have seen NUMERICAL expansion and penetration data for 145 grain Winchester Silvertip .357 Magnum HP, but have not found actual pictures of gelatin performance or expanded bullets taken from the gelatin. This load was reportedly tested in at least some parts of either the FBI or IWBA test protocols. Does anyone know where this data could be? I have the FBI - BRF data from when I was in the IWBA, is it in that database? I also have all hard copies of the IWBA - WBR journals.

Appreciate any info...

-Ron Jones.

---

Ron,

The 145 STHP load performed well in the early FBI protocol testing on penetration, expansion and accuracy standards and was measurably better in all categories than any other .357 load. It was a secondary issue load at the FBI during that time, requiring PFI approval for an agent to carry. I've not seen any pictures from the testing, but have recovered them in water testing I did and they were symmetrical, classic mushroom shapes with the jacket petals peeling back like the 9mm 147 OSM loads, providing some end of wound track cutting action. That load was a mainline duty load all over Dallas and Fort Worth in the 80s and 90s and performed with distinction in dozens and dozens of OIS incidents. It also killed Texas whitetails like crazy for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwampDweller

Apologies that I do not know where to access such information, but I have recently heard from @jetfire and @JonInWA that recent and current production Winchester ammunition is lacking in QC. Sounds like reliability issues. I purchased 120 rounds of new production Silvertip .357 and only learned this afterwards. I suppose it's relegated to practice ammo only for me now, but I'd rather wait until I get a dedicated trainer GP100 to shoot it.

---

It appeared to me that these QC issues involved firearms modified to some degree, in ways that could affect reliability overall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayne Dobbs

Ron,

The 145 STHP load performed well in the early FBI protocol testing on penetration, expansion and accuracy standards and was measurably better in all categories than any other .357 load. It was a secondary issue load at the FBI during that time, requiring PFI approval for an agent to carry. I've not seen any pictures from the testing, but have recovered them in water testing I did and they were symmetrical, classic mushroom shapes with the jacket petals peeling back like the 9mm 147 OSM loads, providing some end of wound track cutting action. That load was a mainline duty load all over Dallas and Fort Worth in the 80s and 90s and performed with distinction in dozens and dozens of OIS incidents. It also killed Texas whitetails like crazy for me.

---

Wayne,

Thank you for your great response. I don't know you personally, but your reputation proceeds you and is positive. After my initial post, I remembered that I tested this load (along with 10 other .357 Magnum JHP loads) for the IWBA WBR journal, Vol 5, Issue 1 in Spring 2001. I took pictures, but they are rather grainy B&W pictures. In fact, the article only contains 2 images of the .357 Silvertip: a front and side view of a single expanded bullet (not very useful).

In that testing, 5 shots were fired vertically into water. The velocity averaged 1,173 FPS, expanded diameters were between 12.42 and 15.31 mm, regained weight was between 68.2 and 118.4 grains, and ESTIMATED gelatin penetration was 8.7 to 11.3 inches. The inconsistent and poor APPARENT performance of this load was due to the nature of the water testing in which 1 of the 5 bullets suffered loss of jacket. In gelatin, this might not even be an issue.

I will have to look at my FBI - BRF data to see if this load is in there.

-Ron Jones.

Yes Winchester has a quality control problem. The department that I retired from with 33 years used Winchester for years and tried to talk to Winchester about QC issues. Winchester was not concerned. We moved on to Hornady.

While 357 and revolvers were authorized the Silver Tip was the issued ammo and was liked until QC became a problem.

Seems like most of the QC issues could be spotted by visual inspection, bullets in backwards, brass deformed while seating bullets or primers not seated right. I would be ok with the ammo after careful visual inspection, but I try to use other big name makers.

All ammo makers let a few of these QC problems escape but Winchester was having an excess and must of felt that they could sell all they wanted to other Departments.

We were by far the biggest Dept in the area and bought lots of ammo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glock17JHP

I will have to look at my FBI - BRF data to see if this load is in there.

---

Should be in there, with a test date in 1989.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sierra 223

Yes Winchester has a quality control problem. The department that I retired from with 33 years used Winchester for years and tried to talk to Winchester about QC issues. Winchester was not concerned. We moved on to Hornady.

While 357 and revolvers were authorized the Silver Tip was the issued ammo and was liked until QC became a problem.

Seems like most of the QC issues could be spotted by visual inspection, bullets in backwards, brass deformed while seating bullets or primers not seated right. I would be ok with the ammo after careful visual inspection, but I try to use other big name makers.

All ammo makers let a few of these QC problems escape but Winchester was having an excess and must of felt that they could sell all they wanted to other Departments.

We were by far the biggest Dept in the area and bought lots of ammo.

---

I am guessing those QC problems were decades ago, based on the caliber?

-Ron.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glock17JHP

I am guessing those QC problems were decades ago, based on the caliber?

-Ron.

---

There’s other discussions here indicating it’s recent production. I have a couple hundred rounds left from a 2004 purchase that have been fine.

Still on going, probably one decade ago that we dropped them. It was well after revolvers were replaced that we were still having problems and eventually switched. A lot of the issue was the could care less about QC for a large contract customer who ordered thousands of rounds on a frequent basis and who depended on quality ammo.

Plenty of other people have noted issues as well with pretty recent ammo. I still see more issues with their practice ammo in pistol and shotgun than other makers. I am not saying its junk, just better quality control available with other makers who were also more responsive to their customers concerns.

Use whatever you are comfortable with. I would be ok with it with a good visual inspection. I don't remember duds or anything like that, just too many visibly defective rounds that could get stuffed into a duty magazine if you did not inspect each round.

Winchester is my last choice of the big names, this is from my experience along with quite a few others.

Seems like the whole ammo shortage and panic mode that we have been in for the last few years have probably added to QC issues for most if not all ammo makers.