AR15.Com Archives
 2" .357 revolver vs. 3.5" 9mm +P auto BALLISTICS COMPARISON
eddiein1984  [Member]
6/23/2011 4:44:34 PM EST
Can somebody post or point me to some a comparison of chronograph results between a 2" .357 revolver (SP101, J-frame, etc.) versus a 3.5" 9mm auto? My gut feel is that the 9mm is pushing more energy in general, and better velocity for similar weight loads (124gr 9mm vs 125 gr .357). In other words, I'd like to see some proof that a 2" .357 is a silly waste of powder and eardrums.
Paid Advertisement
--
SD307  [Member]
6/23/2011 5:04:45 PM EST
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/357mag.html

Some of this may be off. My friends 2.5" S&W 66 gets 1170 FPS with 125gr corbons.

The bullet weights are different in various offerings making a strait and true comparison harder.

Found here: http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-398893.html

MCgunnerOctober 10, 2008, 11:19 AM
Depends on the load. Here's some results I gained from a 2.25" SP101 with my handloads. You'll notice the heavy bullet loads work best. My 158 grainer is relatively mild, not a full pressure load. Best I get from +P in a snub is under 300 ft lbs. The 140 was my choice for carry. A faster powder would be necessary to juice up the 125 grainer, but they don't really work well out of a snub. Go with a 140 grain load would be my advice.
125 grain JHP/18.0 grains 2400......1102 fps/337 ft lbs
140 grain JHP/17.0 grains 2400......1332 fps/551 ft lbs
158 grain SWC/14.5 grains 2400.....1162 fps/426 ft lbs
180 grain XTP-JHP/13.8 grains AA#9....1306 fps/682 ft lbs


More from same thread

Caliber..Load..........Bullet........Velocity..Energy
38spl+P..Rem L38S2.....125 gr. SJHP...902 fps..226 ft*lb
357mag...Rem R357M1....125 gr. SJHP..1289 fps..461 ft*lb
38spl+P..Speer 23921...135 gr. GDHP...963 fps..278 ft*lb
357mag...Rem R357M2....158 gr. SJHP..1131 fps..449 ft*lb
SD307  [Member]
6/23/2011 5:12:30 PM EST
The Buffalo Bore Ammunition website publishes lots of test data on the muzzle velocities of their various ammunition from specific models of guns. It is enlightening to scroll through the data shown to get a feeling for how velocity varies with barrel length. For example, on the page for the company's low flash .357 ammo designed for shorter barrels they show the following:

Tactical Short Barrel Lower Recoil Low Flash 357 Magnum Pistol & Handgun Ammunition

from here http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-revolvers-1980-present/113498-needle-muzzle-velocity-357-out-2-1-8-a.html

Quote:
Item 19F/20-140gr. (jacketed hollow cavity) @ 1,150 fps from a 2.5 inch barreled S&W mod. 66. Designed to mushroom and penetrate deeply-roughly 12 to 14 inches in human tissue.

S&W mod. 340PD 1-7/8 inch barrel -1,088 fps (368 ft. lbs.)
S&W mod. 66 2.5 inch barrel -1,156 fps (415 ft. lbs.)
S&W mod. 65 3 inch barrel -1,246 fps (483 ft. lbs.)
S&W Mt. Gun 4 inch barrel -1,321 fps (542 ft. lbs.)
Colt Python 6 inch barrel -1,286 fps (514 ft. lbs.)

WARNING-shooting this ammo out of revolvers weighing less than 16 OZ produces tremendous felt recoil. We recommend our +P 38 SPL ammo for revolvers that weigh less than 16 OZ., if you are recoil sensitive.

SD307  [Member]
6/23/2011 5:23:00 PM EST
I am seeing the 9mm +p gold dot 124 gr out of 3.5" at 1150 but have no expereince with this.

Here are our chrono results: Ruger 9mm with 3.1 " barrel http://gunsgunsguns.net/ruger-lc9/

■Black Hills 115-grain FMJ: 1,027 fps
CCI/Speer 124-grain +P Gold Dot HP: 1,080 fps
■Cor-Bon 115-grain +P DPX: 1,244 fps
■Federal HydraShok 147-grain JHP: 925 fps
Hornady 124-grain TAP CQ: 1,054 fps
Hornady 124-grain XTP HP: 1,001 fps
■Winchester 147-grain SXT Personal Protection JHP: 934 fps


My initial look over gives an edge to 357 magnum as it is pushing a heavier bullet faster.

It appears that the 357 is getting anywhere from 50 FPS -100FPS more velocity.

That may not seem like much but it is nothing to sneeze at.
Landric  [Team Member]
6/23/2011 6:00:17 PM EST
The ballistics by the inch website is pretty much meaningless when one is looking for revolver velocity in the real world. A 2" revolver has 2" of barrel. The Ballistics by the Inch site created its results by cutting an inch at a time off TC Contender barrels. Since the .357 Magnum cartridge is about 1.5" long, their 2" barrel actually only had about 1/2" of rifling, while a 2" revolver has 2" of rifling.

In my own testing the Speer Gold Dot 124 grain (+P) 9x19mm averaged about 1150 fps out of several 3.5-4" barrels while the infamous Federal 357B 125 grain SJHP averaged 1293 fps out of a 2 1/4" Ruger SP101. The Federal 357B averaged 1428 fps out of my 4" S&W 681, its not even losing that much out of a snubbie, about 135 fps and 100 ft-lbs of energy. Its still has about 100 ft-lbs more energy than the Gold Dot 124 grain (+P).

The .357 Magnum can also push a 158 grain bullet to 1100 fps or more out of a 2 1/4" barrel. The Federal Hydrashok 158 grain .357 averaged 1130 fps out of my 2 1/4" SP101, and the Hydrashok is not known as a particularly powerful .357 Magnum load. The 9x19 can't touch that or even come close.

When I carry a snubbie .357, I opt for heavier bullet loads, right now I'm using the above mentioned Hydrashok. When I carry a 9x19, I carry the 124 grain (+P) Gold Dot.

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
Can somebody post or point me to some a comparison of chronograph results between a 2" .357 revolver (SP101, J-frame, etc.) versus a 3.5" 9mm auto? My gut feel is that the 9mm is pushing more energy in general, and better velocity for similar weight loads (124gr 9mm vs 125 gr .357). In other words, I'd like to see some proof that a 2" .357 is a silly waste of powder and eardrums.


Why is that your gut feeling? While a 2" +/- barrel isn't ideal for burning all of the slow burning powder commonly loaded into .357 Magnum cartridges, the Magnum is still significantly more powerful than the 9x19mm. Assuming, that is, that one is talking about real .357 cartridges and not the ".38 Special +P in .357 Magnum brass" 135 grain Speer Gold Dot "Magnum" loading, or other such reduced power loads.

I am sure one can find "proof" of anything one wants on the internet, but that isn't going to make it a reality.

Its a common internet "fact" that the 9x19 is better than the .357 in a snubbie. However, one never sees anyone claim that the 9x19 is better than the .357 in a 4" barrel. Ever wonder why that is? Because it isn't. The same holds true for shorter tubes.

That isn't to say that the 9x19 pistols are not superior to .357 sunbbies in other ways, each has its advantages, but in per shot power, the .357 has the edge.

RedFalconBill  [Team Member]
6/23/2011 6:49:11 PM EST
Chronograph Work:
The average velocities for each revolver were determined by firing 10 shots each approximately 10' from the chronograph screens.

Corbon .357 125-gr. DPX
Revolver         Average(ft/sec)
S&W M19 - 2.50"  1133
SP-101 - 3.06"   1176

Chronograph Work:
The average velocities for each pistol were determined by firing 10 shots each approximately 10' from the chronograph screens.

Corbon 9x19+P 115-gr. DPX
Pistol            Average(ft/sec)
Glock 26 - 3.46"  1181
SIG P-225 - 3.86" 1163
Landric  [Team Member]
6/23/2011 7:11:26 PM EST
OK, so the Glock 26 has nearly exactly the same amount of energy as the S&W M-19 (357 ft-lbs vs. 356 ft-lbs), while the SP101 (with 383 ft-lbs ) beats the SIG 225 (with 345 ft-lbs). With that set of loads, its pretty close. However, the 9x19 makes is energy with a lighter bullet with a lower sectional density, and therefore likely less penetration. Is there a 124 or 125 grain DPX 9mm load? If so, it would be interesting to see how it compares. The other main question is whether the DPX .357 is supposed to be full-power load, because clearly it isn't. Cor-Bon should be ashamed if they are billing the DPX as "full-power", when the Federal 357B 125 grain makes over 100 FPS more out of a 2 1/4" barrel.

RedFalconBill  [Team Member]
6/23/2011 7:30:51 PM EST

Originally Posted By Landric:
OK, so the Glock 26 has nearly exactly the same amount of energy as the S&W M-19 (357 ft-lbs vs. 356 ft-lbs), while the SP101 (with 383 ft-lbs ) beats the SIG 225 (with 345 ft-lbs). With that set of loads, its pretty close. However, the 9x19 makes is energy with a lighter bullet with a lower sectional density, and therefore likely less penetration. Is there a 124 or 125 grain DPX 9mm load? If so, it would be interesting to see how it compares. The other main question is whether the DPX .357 is supposed to be full-power load, because clearly it isn't. Cor-Bon should be ashamed if they are billing the DPX as "full-power", when the Federal 357B 125 grain makes over 100 FPS more out of a 2 1/4" barrel.


The 125gr 0.355" DPX bullet is for the .357 SIG/.38 Super/9x23. I guess you could handload it in your 9x19.

And there is not that much difference in penetration depths because most DPX bullets were designed to penetrate at least 12" in gel.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=5&f=20&t=110529

Manufacturers load to pressure, not velocity.

This .357 Magnum load is less than the SAMMI max of 35,000psi.

Now there is an earlier SAMMI max of 46,000 CUP, which is also fine, but since the newer recommendation is the preferred one, this is one reason why you are not seeing many .357 Magnum CrackenFlasher BiggunBoom rounds.
DakotaFAL  [Member]
6/24/2011 12:52:17 AM EST
Obviously data is needed on a closer to apples to apples comparison - for example a 124/125 gr 9mm SD load compared to a 125 gr .357 SD load. That would at least give you meaningful velocity numbers. However, velocity can vary from pistol to pistol/revolver to revolver even within the same model. That is particularly true for a revolver given the gap between cylinder and forcing cone. Consequently, any differences of perhpas 50 fps or les are probably not significant and probably don't indicate superiority one way or the other.

However bullet design also comes into play in an SD load. What matters is that the bullet used in either weapon is still operating within the velocity envelop for which it is designed and where it has been demonstrated to be effective. Once you also know that, then you can start to make some assumptions about probable performance that are something more than just a wild assed guess.

Then you can start to look at a qualitative analysis of how well you happen to shoot each handgun/ammunition combination.

Personally, I think the recoil and muzzle flash of a full power .357 in a 2" revolver is somewhat objectionable compared to a full power 3.5" 9mm in most cases. In that regard, I'd be happy to accept 100-200 fps less velocity (provided terminal performance is still as designed/intended with the bullet) if my speed, accuracy and bullet placement with the 9mm is significantly better. Power is only one leg of the table and quite frankly when you are talking "Power" and Pistol" in the same paragraph you are really talking about how badly underpowered you really are. At the end of the day acceptable bullet bullet placement is what is going to get the job done.



DakotaFAL  [Member]
6/24/2011 2:15:29 AM EST
It's probably worth putting all the pieces together. Consider shooting some drills with ea h where you can combine drawing the weapon, then engaging on a scenario were speed accuracy and a reload come into play - such as engaging 3 of the old style IPSC targets with 2 shots to the body ("A" hits only) and 1 to the head on each and compare times for the evolution with each weapon using ammunition of comparable recoil to the SD round you intend to use. That will give you a better grasp of all the factors involved and the overall advantages and disadvantages in performance.
RedFalconBill  [Team Member]
6/24/2011 5:11:16 AM EST
Chronograph Work:
The average velocity for each revolver was determined by firing 10 shots each approximately 10' from the chronograph screens.

Remington .357 125-gr. Golden Saber
Revolver        Average(ft/sec)
GP-100 - 3"     1212
SP-101 - 3.06"  1189

Chronograph Work:
The average velocity was determined by firing 10 shots approximately 12' from the chronograph screens.

Remington 9x19 124gr. Golden Saber
Pistol             Average(ft/sec)
S&W 3913LS - 3.5"  1060
FAIL-SAFE  [Team Member]
6/24/2011 11:19:55 AM EST
Show me what they do terminally, thats all that I care about, because its all that matters.


External ballistics doesnt mean much if it doesnt translate to terminal ballistics.




One day people will get this.
FAIL-SAFE  [Team Member]
6/24/2011 11:29:57 AM EST
Originally Posted By Landric:
In my own testing the Speer Gold Dot 124 grain (+P) 9x19mm averaged about 1150 fps out of several 3.5-4" barrels while the infamous Federal 357B 125 grain SJHP averaged 1293 fps out of a 2 1/4" Ruger SP101. The Federal 357B averaged 1428 fps out of my 4" S&W 681, its not even losing that much out of a snubbie, about 135 fps and 100 ft-lbs of energy. Its still has about 100 ft-lbs more energy than the Gold Dot 124 grain (+P).

The .357 Magnum can also push a 158 grain bullet to 1100 fps or more out of a 2 1/4" barrel. The Federal Hydrashok 158 grain .357 averaged 1130 fps out of my 2 1/4" SP101, and the Hydrashok is not known as a particularly powerful .357 Magnum load. The 9x19 can't touch that or even come close.

When I carry a snubbie .357, I opt for heavier bullet loads, right now I'm using the above mentioned Hydrashok. When I carry a 9x19, I carry the 124 grain (+P) Gold Dot.


If velocity means terminal performance, you'd have a point. It doesnt.

Provide your data that shows "the Hydrashok is not known as a particularly powerful .357 Magnum load."

Originally Posted By Landric:Why is that your gut feeling? While a 2" +/- barrel isn't ideal for burning all of the slow burning powder commonly loaded into .357 Magnum cartridges, the Magnum is still significantly more powerful than the 9x19mm.


Cite your proof, otherwise we are having to rely on your "gut feeling".

Originally Posted By Landric:I am sure one can find "proof" of anything one wants on the internet, but that isn't going to make it a reality.




So we are supposed to rely on you. Someone who offers absolutely no proof, then complains when another does them same.

Hypocrite much?

Originally Posted By Landric:Its a common internet "fact" that the 9x19 is better than the .357 in a snubbie. However, one never sees anyone claim that the 9x19 is better than the .357 in a 4" barrel. Ever wonder why that is?


I'll say it. Comparing similar grain weights, whats a full size .357mag going to do better, terminally, than a 9mm? The only gains it offers is pushing a heavier bullet, like a Winnie PG or a bullet with more mass like Federal XPB.

Originally Posted By Landric:Because it isn't. The same holds true for shorter tubes.

That isn't to say that the 9x19 pistols are not superior to .357 sunbbies in other ways, each has its advantages, but in per shot power, the .357 has the edge.



Whats power. Ft/Lbs of energy? Can you tell us how energy works, what it is, and how it translates terminally?

eddiein1984  [Member]
6/24/2011 2:47:06 PM EST
Originally Posted By Landric:
The ballistics by the inch website is pretty much meaningless when one is looking for revolver velocity in the real world. A 2" revolver has 2" of barrel. The Ballistics by the Inch site created its results by cutting an inch at a time off TC Contender barrels. Since the .357 Magnum cartridge is about 1.5" long, their 2" barrel actually only had about 1/2" of rifling, while a 2" revolver has 2" of rifling.

In my own testing the Speer Gold Dot 124 grain (+P) 9x19mm averaged about 1150 fps out of several 3.5-4" barrels while the infamous Federal 357B 125 grain SJHP averaged 1293 fps out of a 2 1/4" Ruger SP101. The Federal 357B averaged 1428 fps out of my 4" S&W 681, its not even losing that much out of a snubbie, about 135 fps and 100 ft-lbs of energy. Its still has about 100 ft-lbs more energy than the Gold Dot 124 grain (+P).

The .357 Magnum can also push a 158 grain bullet to 1100 fps or more out of a 2 1/4" barrel. The Federal Hydrashok 158 grain .357 averaged 1130 fps out of my 2 1/4" SP101, and the Hydrashok is not known as a particularly powerful .357 Magnum load. The 9x19 can't touch that or even come close.

When I carry a snubbie .357, I opt for heavier bullet loads, right now I'm using the above mentioned Hydrashok. When I carry a 9x19, I carry the 124 grain (+P) Gold Dot.

Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
Can somebody post or point me to some a comparison of chronograph results between a 2" .357 revolver (SP101, J-frame, etc.) versus a 3.5" 9mm auto? My gut feel is that the 9mm is pushing more energy in general, and better velocity for similar weight loads (124gr 9mm vs 125 gr .357). In other words, I'd like to see some proof that a 2" .357 is a silly waste of powder and eardrums.


Why is that your gut feeling? While a 2" +/- barrel isn't ideal for burning all of the slow burning powder commonly loaded into .357 Magnum cartridges, the Magnum is still significantly more powerful than the 9x19mm. Assuming, that is, that one is talking about real .357 cartridges and not the ".38 Special +P in .357 Magnum brass" 135 grain Speer Gold Dot "Magnum" loading, or other such reduced power loads.

I am sure one can find "proof" of anything one wants on the internet, but that isn't going to make it a reality.

Its a common internet "fact" that the 9x19 is better than the .357 in a snubbie. However, one never sees anyone claim that the 9x19 is better than the .357 in a 4" barrel. Ever wonder why that is? Because it isn't. The same holds true for shorter tubes.

That isn't to say that the 9x19 pistols are not superior to .357 sunbbies in other ways, each has its advantages, but in per shot power, the .357 has the edge.



So, basically you don't need to see the chronograph results, you would rather rely on your own conclusions?
Fields_Overseer  [Member]
6/24/2011 7:51:55 PM EST
Energy is meaningless when determining terminal ballistics.

A 9mm is better cause the wound channel is gonna be pretty much the same, but you can get a lot more shots off, faster with a 9mm.

Yea, a .357 might offer 10% more damage, which may be important when playing COD, but when your definding your life in the real world, use a modern,optimal tool for the job.

"power" is also meaningless for pistols. You want more holes, in the right spot, faster. The only pistol load that may take energy into account is the 5.7. It may have enough to take the hydrostatic shock into levels high enough to actually do something, but im not sure. Everything else is just a cookie cutter.

Sorry OP, I dont have the exact info you want, just putting things in perspective.
Landric  [Team Member]
6/25/2011 5:41:20 AM EST
Originally Posted By eddiein1984:

So, basically you don't need to see the chronograph results, you would rather rely on your own conclusions?


Perhaps I wasn't clear, but I did chronograph both myself and found the .357 out of a 2 1/4" Ruger SP101 to have significantly more velocity, muzzle energy, and momentum than the Speer Gold Dot 124 grain (+P) 9x19mm.

Speer GD 9x19, HK P7 4.08":

Ave Velocity: 1139 fps
Ave Muzzle Energy: 357 ft-lbs
Ave Momentum: 20.18

Federal 357B .357, Ruger SP101 2 1/4":

Ave Velocity: 1293 fps
Ave Muzzle Energy: 464 ft-lbs
Ave Momentum: 23.09

Does that translate into better "stopping power" or "terminal performance"? I have no idea. However, the OP was looking for stats that supported his "gut feeling" that the 9x19mm +P has more velocity than the .357 Magnum out of a snubbie with roughly equal weight bullets. In my experience the snubbie .357 has a significant advantage in velocity.

Originally Posted By FAIL-SAFE:

If velocity means terminal performance, you'd have a point. It doesnt.


No, my point was to answer the OP and his belief that the 9x19 +P has more velocity than a similar weight .357 in a snubbie. I never said anything about "terminal performance". Does higher velocity and more muzzle energy translate into more terminal performance? I have no idea, but clearly it is commonly accepted (true or not) that many people believe that it does.

Originally Posted By FAIL-SAFE:Provide your data that shows "the Hydrashok is not known as a particularly powerful .357 Magnum load."


Originally Posted By FAIL-SAFE:

Cite your proof, otherwise we are having to rely on your "gut feeling".


Federal claims 1240 fps and 539 ft-lbs for the Hydrashok 158 .357 Magnum. That is about in line with similar loads from Remington and Winchester. So, that makes it about average for a 158 grain .357, not "particularly powerful". Companies like Double Tap and Buffalo Bore (and I expect others) offer 158 grain .357 loadings with significantly more velocity and energy. If you don't trust my information, feel free to do some research on 158 grain .357 factory loads yourself.


Originally Posted By FAIL-SAFE:So we are supposed to rely on you. Someone who offers absolutely no proof, then complains when another does them same.

Hypocrite much?


See my testing above. FWIW, I cited the same information (less the momentum) in my first post on this subject. I'm sorry if you didn't see it. If you don't trust my results, feel free to go out and test it yourself. Of course if you do, and you post it, someone like you will come along and disbelieve them.

Originally Posted By FAIL-SAFE:I'll say it. Comparing similar grain weights, whats a full size .357mag going to do better, terminally, than a 9mm? The only gains it offers is pushing a heavier bullet, like a Winnie PG or a bullet with more mass like Federal XPB.


I have no idea. That isn't what the OP asked. He wanted to know specifically about velocity.

Originally Posted By FAIL-SAFE:Whats power. Ft/Lbs of energy?



Ft-lbs and momentum are commonly accepted values used to translate the "power" of various cartridges in the US.

Originally Posted By FAIL-SAFE:Can you tell us how energy works, what it is, and how it translates terminally?


Can you? I never made a claim that higher muzzle energy automatically equaled better "terminal performance". You seem to have decided that I did. I think that higher muzzle energy, to an extent, does make a difference when it comes to bullet effectiveness, but that is just my "gut feeling".

Originally Posted By Fields_Overseer:
Energy is meaningless when determining terminal ballistics.

A 9mm is better cause the wound channel is gonna be pretty much the same, but you can get a lot more shots off, faster with a 9mm.

Yea, a .357 might offer 10% more damage, which may be important when playing COD, but when your definding your life in the real world, use a modern,optimal tool for the job.

"power" is also meaningless for pistols. You want more holes, in the right spot, faster. The only pistol load that may take energy into account is the 5.7. It may have enough to take the hydrostatic shock into levels high enough to actually do something, but im not sure. Everything else is just a cookie cutter.

Sorry OP, I dont have the exact info you want, just putting things in perspective.


I think the problem that we are running into here is that some people see this as an attack on the 9x19mm, which it is not. Clearly the 9x19 offers some serious advantages over a snubbie .357 revolver in real world application. A Glock 26, for instance, is easier to shoot well, holds twice the ammunition, and can be much more easily modified (sights, connectors, etc). It doesn't produce as much per shot muzzle energy or velocity and its less pocket carry friendly (at least for me) than most small revolvers. As someone who carries both a Glock 26 and a snubbie SP101 (sometimes at the same time), I really don't have a feeling as to which gun is "better", they both have their uses.

All that said, if I knew that I was going to get one shot and one shot only and my choices were a .357 Magnum out of a snubbie or a 9x19mm out of a small auto like the Glock 26, I'd take the one shot from a .357 Magnum with either a 125 grain or 158 grain load. Since there is no way to know that sort of thing in advance, one makes the best decision one can.

SD307  [Member]
6/25/2011 7:09:14 AM EST
I disagree a on the glock 26 being easier to shoot I find a 2.5 S&W 66 easier to shoot well than a Glock 26. But this is a matter of preference.

The arguments are simple 9mm lovers spout speed and capcity.

If velocity of an extra 100 fps given by 9mm+p over 9mm is justification for the wear, recoil, and blast is the extra 100 FPS worth going to 357 sig or a revovler in 357 magnum? The capcity issue is muted here so velocity and terminal performance are the issue in this thread.

HPs designed for use in revovlers create larger wound channels than HP bullets designed for autos because the jacket does not need to be so high to aid in feeding the round. Therefore 357 magnum HP's like the famous 125 grain SJHP (semi jacketed hollow point) or (scallpoed jacketed hollow point) provide better expansion and larger wound channels than a 9mm or 357 sig same weight bullets at the same velocity simply because they expand more rapidly on target.

This has been pointed out by Ayoob, and others.

If you really want to argue this the answer is 357 sig it has all the speed and 10 round capacity.
Landric  [Team Member]
6/25/2011 2:31:25 PM EST
Originally Posted By SD307:
I disagree a on the glock 26 being easier to shoot I find a 2.5 S&W 66 easier to shoot well than a Glock 26. But this is a matter of preference.



I agree with that. A K-frame snubbie is much easier to shoot than a 26 for me, I was thinking more of the J-frame based Magnums and guns of similar size, not K and L frame snubbies.

FAIL-SAFE  [Team Member]
6/27/2011 11:01:55 AM EST
Originally Posted By Landric:
No, my point was to answer the OP and his belief that the 9x19 +P has more velocity than a similar weight .357 in a snubbie. I never said anything about "terminal performance". Does higher velocity and more muzzle energy translate into more terminal performance? I have no idea, but clearly it is commonly accepted (true or not) that many people believe that it does.


Who commonly accepts it?

Having read your response completely before responding, it should be noted that in the last quote you do believe that muzzle energy and ft-lbs "does make a difference when it comes to bullet effectiveness". Yet in the above quote you state, otherwise.


Originally Posted By Landric:Federal claims 1240 fps and 539 ft-lbs for the Hydrashok 158 .357 Magnum. That is about in line with similar loads from Remington and Winchester. So, that makes it about average for a 158 grain .357, not "particularly powerful". Companies like Double Tap and Buffalo Bore (and I expect others) offer 158 grain .357 loadings with significantly more velocity and energy. If you don't trust my information, feel free to do some research on 158 grain .357 factory loads yourself.


Since when does ft-lbs of energy matter in a handgun round? I have no doubts that with factory ammo the .357mag is still faster in various barrel lengths than many 9mms in the same, but I dont equate that speed to effectiveness of the round. Its bullet design nowadays, not speed.

Originally Posted By Landric:See my testing above. FWIW, I cited the same information (less the momentum) in my first post on this subject. I'm sorry if you didn't see it. If you don't trust my results, feel free to go out and test it yourself. Of course if you do, and you post it, someone like you will come along and disbelieve them.


Nobody is saying you didnt post results of chronograph. That wasnt what I was talking about. Nice try. You are claiming a round is more powerful, and doing so by citing an ancient, and yet unproven way of deciding what power is. You throw out terms like "muzzle energy" and "ft-lbs of energy", and show erroneous figures to show something is powerful, but you cant prove those numbers equal power.

Originally Posted By Landric:I have no idea. That isn't what the OP asked. He wanted to know specifically about velocity.


If the OP, as you say, wanted numbers, why did you add misleading figures as well? Also, I wasnt responding to the OP, I was responding to you, and the so-called "data" you are throwing about.

Originally Posted By Landric:Ft-lbs and momentum are commonly accepted values used to translate the "power" of various cartridges in the US.


Again, accepted by who? Where did you cite momentum?

Originally Posted By Landric:Can you? I never made a claim that higher muzzle energy automatically equaled better "terminal performance". You seem to have decided that I did. I think that higher muzzle energy, to an extent, does make a difference when it comes to bullet effectiveness, but that is just my "gut feeling".


Yes. However the onus is on you, not me. You go on about the .357mag having higher muzzle energy numbers and ft-lbs of energy as if its some kind of measure of performance. Then you claim its "commonly accepted".

Your "gut feeling" tells you muzzle energy and ft-lbs makes a difference, yet earlier you "have no idea". However this is a technical discussion, and facts are the only things that matter.
Landric  [Team Member]
6/27/2011 2:49:49 PM EST
Originally Posted By FAIL-SAFE:

Who commonly accepts it?

Having read your response completely before responding, it should be noted that in the last quote you do believe that muzzle energy and ft-lbs "does make a difference when it comes to bullet effectiveness". Yet in the above quote you state, otherwise.


Well, lets see. Just about every ammunition manufacturer I know of cites both velocity and muzzle energy of their various ammunition. Muzzle energy is commonly referenced in both online discussions and print publications in reference to ammunition, stopping power, cartridge power, etc. It seems pretty obvious that the reason ammunition manufacturers cite muzzle energy is because either they think it makes a difference/is useful data to have, or people think it makes a difference/is useful data to have. You are free to believe that it doesn't make a difference. You might even be right. However, to suggest that muzzle energy isn't commonly accepted as a value to describe the power of various cartridges in ignorant.

As for my statement, it is my gut feeling that muzzle energy makes some difference. However, as I cannot prove that gut feeling, I have no idea if it actually makes a difference. Perhaps I would have been more clear if I hadn't left out the actually.

Originally Posted By FAIL-SAFE:Since when does ft-lbs of energy matter in a handgun round? I have no doubts that with factory ammo the .357mag is still faster in various barrel lengths than many 9mms in the same, but I dont equate that speed to effectiveness of the round. Its bullet design nowadays, not speed.


So you are suggesting that in previous times it was speed and not bullet design? Are you suggesting that a 125 grain Speer Gold Dot in .38 Special is superior to a Federal 357B .357 Magnum SJHP because it has a superior bullet design, or for that matter that a 125 grain Gold Dot in .357 Magnum is equal to a 125 grain Gold Dot in .38 Special because they use equally well designed bullets of the same weight? If so, why does the .357 Magnum even exist?

Originally Posted By FAIL-SAFE:Nobody is saying you didnt post results of chronograph. That wasnt what I was talking about. Nice try. You are claiming a round is more powerful, and doing so by citing an ancient, and yet unproven way of deciding what power is. You throw out terms like "muzzle energy" and "ft-lbs of energy", and show erroneous figures to show something is powerful, but you cant prove those numbers equal power.


I suppose I can't. How do you suggest one prove power? If ft-lbs of muzzle energy has no relationship to cartridge power, why do ammunition manufacturers go out of their way to provide the information?

Originally Posted By FAIL-SAFE:If the OP, as you say, wanted numbers, why did you add misleading figures as well? Also, I wasnt responding to the OP, I was responding to you, and the so-called "data" you are throwing about.


Yes, but I was responding to the OP. I happen to be in the habit, good or bad, of providing energy information along with velocity information. I'm sorry if that offends you. Since you seem to feel it is meaningless, perhaps you could provide some information that you do find useful. I might be enlightened.

Originally Posted By FAIL-SAFE:Again, accepted by who? Where did you cite momentum?


See above for who the information is accepted by. As for momentum, it was here:

Originally Posted By Landric:
Speer GD 9x19, HK P7 4.08":

Ave Velocity: 1139 fps
Ave Muzzle Energy: 357 ft-lbs
Ave Momentum: 20.18

Federal 357B .357, Ruger SP101 2 1/4":

Ave Velocity: 1293 fps
Ave Muzzle Energy: 464 ft-lbs
Ave Momentum: 23.09


Originally Posted By FAIL-SAFE:Yes. However the onus is on you, not me. You go on about the .357mag having higher muzzle energy numbers and ft-lbs of energy as if its some kind of measure of performance. Then you claim its "commonly accepted".

Your "gut feeling" tells you muzzle energy and ft-lbs makes a difference, yet earlier you "have no idea". However this is a technical discussion, and facts are the only things that matter.


Perhaps, then you should consider providing some. Whether you agree with the relevance of muzzle velocity or energy or not, the data I provided was factual. How that data is interpreted is open for debate, but the numbers themselves are real. You can choose not to believe them if you wish.
eddiein1984  [Member]
6/27/2011 4:00:29 PM EST
Landric: I apologize, I didn't see in your first post that you did cite your own chronograph results. Energy and velocity were the standardized measurements of terminal performance that I was looking for.

I am a little surprised that a .357 out of a 2" barrel can beat a 9mm +P out of a 3.5-4" auto barrel. I thought for sure that the .357 would be wildly inefficient, but it does appear to actually have an edge. I will say, however, that a 2" .357, in my experience, is terrible to shoot and has nothing on a compact 9mm for shootability. Any 9mm that you can get 3 fingers onto (Glock 19, eg) is comfortable enough to shoot all day. Even the 26 is fairly comfortable compared to a J-frame.
DakotaFAL  [Member]
6/27/2011 4:20:46 PM EST
It's not an argument you can win. The terminal ballistics mafia split into two camps - the ballistics gel penetration folks and the shooting incident data base folks and generally speaking neither group is overly interested in recognizing and applying the limitations of the data - whether test or incident analysis based. It is afterall a lot easier to just reference the rounds on a "list" and call it good rather than look at the much more global range of factors involved in being effective with a handgun.

As you know, If you try to discuss even a simple issue like this in reference to specific data, the end result will be folks questioning or even challenging the relevance - and largely missing the point that there is value in understanding that type of data as it directly impacts the assumptions made in the sacred lists.

I wouldn't bother to pursue it as it just annoys all involved.
Landric  [Team Member]
6/28/2011 4:29:01 AM EST
Originally Posted By eddiein1984:
Landric: I apologize, I didn't see in your first post that you did cite your own chronograph results. Energy and velocity were the standardized measurements of terminal performance that I was looking for.

I am a little surprised that a .357 out of a 2" barrel can beat a 9mm +P out of a 3.5-4" auto barrel. I thought for sure that the .357 would be wildly inefficient, but it does appear to actually have an edge. I will say, however, that a 2" .357, in my experience, is terrible to shoot and has nothing on a compact 9mm for shootability. Any 9mm that you can get 3 fingers onto (Glock 19, eg) is comfortable enough to shoot all day. Even the 26 is fairly comfortable compared to a J-frame.


No need to apologize, looking back at my first post it doesn't look like I was super clear. I was a little surpirsed with the results myself, but I have gotten the same ones over several testing sessions. The .357 is commonly loaded with slower burning powders that burn more completely in longer barrels as compared to the 9x19mm. However, since full power .357 ammunition is loaded to significantly higher velocities, those velocities seem to translate even when the barrel length is shortened.

That said, a snubbie, small frame .357 really is a nitch gun, while a small 9x19mm is more general purpose. My preference tends to be for the small revolvers, especially durning the summer, because I pocket carry a lot, and I have never been able to comfortably do that with my Glock 26. When I do carry IWB or in a belt holster I generally carry an autoloader in 9x19, .40 S&W, or .45 ACP.

At the moment I am using a Airweight .38 Special as a backup at work, but I'm switching to a snubbie .357. Since I carry my backup in an ankle holster I like a revolver for the role, and the significant weight savings over a similarly powerful (and reliable) auto is important to me.

Originally Posted By DakotaFAL:
It's not an argument you can win. The terminal ballistics mafia split into two camps - the ballistics gel penetration folks and the shooting incident data base folks and generally speaking neither group is overly interested in recognizing and applying the limitations of the data - whether test or incident analysis based. It is afterall a lot easier to just reference the rounds on a "list" and call it good rather than look at the much more global range of factors involved in being effective with a handgun.

As you know, If you try to discuss even a simple issue like this in reference to specific data, the end result will be folks questioning or even challenging the relevance - and largely missing the point that there is value in understanding that type of data as it directly impacts the assumptions made in the sacred lists.

I wouldn't bother to pursue it as it just annoys all involved.


I don't actually fall into either camp. I know the arguments, and I think its all important. I also think it all takes a back seat to bullet placement and the unique characteristics of the person actually being shot. Nothing is for sure.
SD307  [Member]
6/28/2011 5:30:18 AM EST
Landric thanks for the info and sticking it out.

Originally Posted By DakotaFAL:
It's not an argument you can win. The terminal ballistics mafia split into two camps - the ballistics gel penetration folks and the shooting incident data base folks and generally speaking neither group is overly interested in recognizing and applying the limitations of the data - whether test or incident analysis based. It is afterall a lot easier to just reference the rounds on a "list" and call it good rather than look at the much more global range of factors involved in being effective with a handgun.

As you know, If you try to discuss even a simple issue like this in reference to specific data, the end result will be folks questioning or even challenging the relevance - and largely missing the point that there is value in understanding that type of data as it directly impacts the assumptions made in the sacred lists.

I wouldn't bother to pursue it as it just annoys all involved.


I agree, but when comparing the 357 mag to the 9mm even in +p the 357 shows to perform better both in gel and in shooting stats. The biggest draw back of the 357 magnum is it is a revovler cartridge. The attempts to move that performance into autos in the 357 sig have been very successful but meet with alot of resistance, on sights like this and THR. Most say the 357 sig is simplt a really fast 9mm and they are right.

But if you are not carrying a 45 or 10mm then you are relying on speed to get expansion no matter what the bullet design. Faster may not always be better but a look at the numbers from both gel test and real world show the 357 to be marginally more effective than 9mm.

The difference is on paper alone a full power 357 load out performs 10mm and 45 acp as well. In real world data the numbers are statistically insignificant. Niether matter because in todays world capacity trumps performance.



FAIL-SAFE  [Team Member]
6/28/2011 11:58:20 AM EST
Originally Posted By Landric:
Well, lets see. Just about every ammunition manufacturer I know of cites both velocity and muzzle energy of their various ammunition. Muzzle energy is commonly referenced in both online discussions and print publications in reference to ammunition, stopping power, cartridge power, etc. It seems pretty obvious that the reason ammunition manufacturers cite muzzle energy is because either they think it makes a difference/is useful data to have, or people think it makes a difference/is useful data to have. You are free to believe that it doesn't make a difference. You might even be right. However, to suggest that muzzle energy isn't commonly accepted as a value to describe the power of various cartridges in ignorant.


Just because they list it doesnt mean its commonly accepted. Every reputable ammunition maker also tests their products to FBI spec. They offer them both because there are still people that believe that they can defy science and physics. Stopping Power junkies use it because they have nothing to quantify their meaningless "data". That said, your paragraph doesnt say who commonly accepts muzzle energy and ft-lbs of energy.

Originally Posted By Landric:As for my statement, it is my gut feeling that muzzle energy makes some difference. However, as I cannot prove that gut feeling, I have no idea if it actually makes a difference. Perhaps I would have been more clear if I hadn't left out the actually.


Its fine that its your gut feeling, but until you can provide some hard scientific data to support, dont try and state it as fact.

Originally Posted By Landric:So you are suggesting that in previous times it was speed and not bullet design? Are you suggesting that a 125 grain Speer Gold Dot in .38 Special is superior to a Federal 357B .357 Magnum SJHP because it has a superior bullet design, or for that matter that a 125 grain Gold Dot in .357 Magnum is equal to a 125 grain Gold Dot in .38 Special because they use equally well designed bullets of the same weight? If so, why does the .357 Magnum even exist?


Did I? Going back over my posts. . . . nnnnope, dont see it. In handgun rounds it has never been speed that makes for a better defensive round in a handgun. Its always been what a bullet crushes, tears, and cuts. Couple that with things like shootability, recoil, capacity, longevity, and you truly find what makes a great defensive round.

With regards to your questions about modern defensive rounds versus older faster rounds, it might be. If that .38spec round expands more, penetrates more, recoils less, then hell yes I'd rather have it over the older .357mag round, or same bullet. That said between the two terminally it might be a wash. If I were to compare the 110gr .38spec DPX or 135gr+P .38spec GDHP over the older 125gr .357mag SJHP, I would take the .38spec everyday.

Why does .357mag exist? Seriously? Because when comparing things like LRN or JSPs, the faster round would get through doors better. We arent limited to those bullets these days.

Originally Posted By Landric:I suppose I can't. How do you suggest one prove power? If ft-lbs of muzzle energy has no relationship to cartridge power, why do ammunition manufacturers go out of their way to provide the information?


Terminal performance. Bullet penetration, bullet expansion. The FBI Protocol works pretty good, as does the old IWBA Protocol.

Ammo manufacturers still post ft-lbs of energy because, simply put, people dont know how to read. Or they dont want to. You've had dishonest gunwriters telling us for so long that energy is a wounding factor, but they, like you, cant prove it.

Originally Posted By Landric:Yes, but I was responding to the OP. I happen to be in the habit, good or bad, of providing energy information along with velocity information. I'm sorry if that offends you. Since you seem to feel it is meaningless, perhaps you could provide some information that you do find useful. I might be enlightened.


Its a bad habit to be in when you provide numbers to something you cant factually support. It doesnt matter where you are.

As for my data, well I will spare myself the time and effort of linking you to it, and direct your attention to the Handgun Ammunition forum, on this board, in this very section. The stickied links to data on handgun ammunition is a wealth of information.

Originally Posted By Landric:See above for who the information is accepted by.


See why its bullshit above.

Originally Posted By Landric: As for momentum, it was here:

Originally Posted By Landric:
Speer GD 9x19, HK P7 4.08":

Ave Velocity: 1139 fps
Ave Muzzle Energy: 357 ft-lbs
Ave Momentum: 20.18

Federal 357B .357, Ruger SP101 2 1/4":

Ave Velocity: 1293 fps
Ave Muzzle Energy: 464 ft-lbs
Ave Momentum: 23.09


I see that. Last I checked, momentum was mass times velocity.


Originally Posted By Landric:Perhaps, then you should consider providing some. Whether you agree with the relevance of muzzle velocity or energy or not, the data I provided was factual. How that data is interpreted is open for debate, but the numbers themselves are real. You can choose not to believe them if you wish.


Stop obfuscating. The burden of proof is on you to support your figures. If you cannot, just say so. The data you provided, with regards to velocity figures, may very well be factual, but you still havent backed your opinion up with facts. The numbers may be real, but =they provide no facts. You dont either.
FAIL-SAFE  [Team Member]
6/28/2011 12:06:46 PM EST
Originally Posted By SD307:
I agree, but when comparing the 357 mag to the 9mm even in +p the 357 shows to perform better both in gel


Show the results.

Originally Posted By SD307:and in shooting stats.


Whose shooting stats. The guy that claims to have stacks of bullets, yet wont let anyone see them. Or the guy that falsely attributes shootings and outcomes to police departments that never happened the way he claims?

Originally Posted By SD307:But if you are not carrying a 45 or 10mm then you are relying on speed to get expansion no matter what the bullet design.


No true at all. I assure my 147gr Rangers and my 124 gr Fed Tac Bonded both expand quite, but most importantly, they always get good penetration.

Its the way the bullet is designed that gets the expansion.

Originally Posted By SD307:Faster may not always be better but a look at the numbers from both gel test and real world show the 357 to be marginally more effective than 9mm.


What numbers? I havent seen any numbers from the FBI or IWBA Protocols that support the .357mag as being better. "Real world show" shooting are darn difficult to believe with all the incorrect information, fiction, attributed to them.

Originally Posted By SD307:The difference is on paper alone a full power 357 load out performs 10mm and 45 acp as well..


Gosh, if only paper was flesh of various densities, bone, organs that are either elastic or inelastic. And if only paper was windshields, car doors, wallboard, sheetrock, denim, t-shirts, etc.

Originally Posted By SD307:Niether matter because in todays world capacity trumps performance


Placement trumps everything. More shots on target means less chance of badguy continuing to do bad things.

SD307  [Member]
6/28/2011 2:04:05 PM EST
Ya know fail safe I am not going to sit here and write a novel If you want these numbers look them up yourself it takes a few hours of basic reasearch skills on the net.

If you want to carry a 9mm go for it I don't care but to espound that a 9mm is better than a 357 magnum in stopping power is stupid and irrespoinsible espeically on a forum full of many of new to the gun world forum lurkers who read the crap you spout and may beleive it because you are eloquent and have fewer typos than me.

If 9mm was so much better then evidence would prove it out. It has not the 9mm offers an advantage only in capacity. So many short coming exist in 9mm that 357 Sig, and 40 S&W were researched, marketed, and proven successful and are now both very common LE rounds over the 9mm. Most LE agencies have voted with thier feet and found 9mm wanting.

If you take the time you can find evidence for everything posted on this thread the burden id on you to do your own research not expect me to write a thesis for you.
Landric  [Team Member]
6/28/2011 2:50:07 PM EST
Originally Posted By FAIL-SAFE:
... Ammo manufacturers still post ft-lbs of energy because, simply put, people dont know how to read. Or they dont want to. You've had dishonest gunwriters telling us for so long that energy is a wounding factor, but they, like you, cant prove it.


OK, I get it. People that don't agree with you are stupid. I'll go on being stupid. Trying to persuade you that I didn't say what I didn't say is making my head hurt.

Originally Posted By FAIL-SAFE:Its a bad habit to be in when you provide numbers to something you cant factually support. It doesnt matter where you are.


Interestingly enough, the numbers I provided were exactly what the OP was looking for. I suppose in your opinion that makes him stupid too for wanting them. Should you desire to work it out yourself, the mass of the bullets chronographed and their velocity can be used to yield the same numbers I have posted here. That is a "fact". Your complaint seems to be that both velocity and muzzle energy are worthless things to know. Since I didn't say "The .357 Magnum is better than the 9x19mm because it has more velocity and muzzle energy", I'm not trying to factually support anything, just provided the data I have collected.


Originally Posted By FAIL-SAFE:I see that. Last I checked, momentum was mass times velocity.


Yes, and the bullet weight in pounds times its velocity equals the numbers I provided.

Originally Posted By FAIL-SAFE:Stop obfuscating. The burden of proof is on you to support your figures. If you cannot, just say so. The data you provided, with regards to velocity figures, may very well be factual, but you still havent backed your opinion up with facts. The numbers may be real, but =they provide no facts. You dont either.


If I was trying to prove something you might be correct. I was providing data for the OP to do with as he would.

At any rate, I'm done with this conversation. For someone so concerned with facts, you haven't provided any. That would be fine if you were not writing as if I was wrong and you were right and you had the proof to back it up.

So, consider this a win if you want to, you won't get another response out of me. I'll just continue to collect the same data I always have and comfort myself with the knowledge that its all meaningless when compared to shot placement. I have yet to meet anyone who can tell the difference between a 147 grain 9mm and a 230 grain .45 ACP passing through their heart or brain. All the rest of it is angles dancing on the heads of pins.
FAIL-SAFE  [Team Member]
6/29/2011 1:45:08 PM EST
Originally Posted By SD307:
Ya know fail safe I am not going to sit here and write a novel If you want these numbers look them up yourself it takes a few hours of basic reasearch skills on the net.


But I'm not the one touting these numbers, you are. You are claiming they are present, yet you dont want to provide the info.

Originally Posted By SD307:If you want to carry a 9mm go for it I don't care but to espound that a 9mm is better than a 357 magnum in stopping power is stupid and irrespoinsible espeically on a forum full of many of new to the gun world forum lurkers who read the crap you spout and may beleive it because you are eloquent and have fewer typos than me.


Show me that its stupid. You are the one that says there is sound data to support your position, yet you dont provide the data. How odd. Is it because you dont have the data, or thought the data would support you, but doesnt. You are right, there are a lot of people new to shooting out there, on here. This is technical discussion. In a forum such as this, you have to have the facts to back up your claims.

It doesnt matter how many typos you have, I despise grammar nazis as much as anyone. That said I understand the difference between this section of arfcom and General Discussion.

Originally Posted By SD307:If 9mm was so much better then evidence would prove it out. It has not the 9mm offers an advantage only in capacity. So many short coming exist in 9mm that 357 Sig, and 40 S&W were researched, marketed, and proven successful and are now both very common LE rounds over the 9mm. Most LE agencies have voted with thier feet and found 9mm wanting.


It absolutely does. Lets compare two common loads. 124gr+P(or standard pressure) Speer GDHP and a 125gr Remington Semi-Jacketed Hollow Point. If the Gold Dot penetrates more than the Remington load, and has more, par, or less expansion,which one was better? Its an easy answer. Same loads, but this time they must go through a common soft barrier. Clothing, pick your type. If the 9mm offering penetrates and expands, and the .357mag doesnt, what is better? Again, an easy answer.

As for the shortcomings of 9mm, please. .357sig is the same diameter as 9mm. It was designed because some folks at SIG and Federal thought that velocity would matter. .40 exists because of the 10mm debacle. When all 3 of these calibers took advantage of newer bullets, the performance is virtually identical. Dont believe, google "Winchester LE Workshop".

Your last two sentences are silly and are total lies. Since I know you wont provide any facts, let me throw some your way. Dallas PD, New York PD, Los Angeles SO, Los Angeles PD, San Diego PD, Chicago PD and many hundreds of police departments still issue 9mm. They all still take care of badguys quite well. The only shortcoming are from people who miss their target, or dont achieve good hits on their target.


Originally Posted By SD307:If you take the time you can find evidence for everything posted on this thread the burden id on you to do your own research not expect me to write a thesis for you.


The burden isnt on me. You havent posted a single fact. Instead you have chosen to lie. I've actually pointed out were data can be found, on this site, yet you are too lazy to look and read. I wonder why.

FAIL-SAFE  [Team Member]
6/29/2011 2:06:22 PM EST
Originally Posted By Landric:
OK, I get it. People that don't agree with you are stupid. I'll go on being stupid. Trying to persuade you that I didn't say what I didn't say is making my head hurt.


No, whats stupid is wondering into a technical discussion, and posting erroneous data. Can you prove that muzzle energy and ft-lbs of energy are wounding factors in handguns?


Originally Posted By Landric:Interestingly enough, the numbers I provided were exactly what the OP was looking for. I suppose in your opinion that makes him stupid too for wanting them. Should you desire to work it out yourself, the mass of the bullets chronographed and their velocity can be used to yield the same numbers I have posted here. That is a "fact". Your complaint seems to be that both velocity and muzzle energy are worthless things to know. Since I didn't say "The .357 Magnum is better than the 9x19mm because it has more velocity and muzzle energy", I'm not trying to factually support anything, just provided the data I have collected.


Actually this is what the OP asked:

Can somebody post or point me to some a comparison of chronograph results between a 2" .357 revolver (SP101, J-frame, etc.) versus a 3.5" 9mm auto?


True enough, you provided that data.

The OP also wanted this information

In other words, I'd like to see some proof that a 2" .357 is a silly waste of powder and eardrums.


That data has yet to be proven

What you have yet to support is muzzle energy and ft-lbs of energy. You wont ever prove it though.


Originally Posted By Landric:If I was trying to prove something you might be correct. I was providing data for the OP to do with as he would.


Yet to be proven by you:

the Magnum is still significantly more powerful than the 9x19mm


The Federal Hydrashok 158 grain .357 averaged 1130 fps out of my 2 1/4" SP101, and the Hydrashok is not known as a particularly powerful .357 Magnum load. The 9x19 can't touch that or even come close.


Its a common internet "fact" that the 9x19 is better than the .357 in a snubbie. However, one never sees anyone claim that the 9x19 is better than the .357 in a 4" barrel. Ever wonder why that is? Because it isn't. The same holds true for shorter tubes.[b]


When RedFalconBill provided some data, you said

OK, so the Glock 26 has nearly exactly the same amount of energy as the S&W M-19 (357 ft-lbs vs. 356 ft-lbs), while the SP101 (with 383 ft-lbs ) beats the SIG 225 (with 345 ft-lbs). [b]With that set of loads, its pretty close. However, the 9x19 makes is energy with a lighter bullet with a lower sectional density, and therefore likely less penetration.


The problem is the the 9mm 115gr DPX actually has more sectional density because its an all copper bullet. Because all copper is less dense than copper and lead, it is actually much longer, and with that longer length, it has more mass.

Originally Posted By Landric:At any rate, I'm done with this conversation. For someone so concerned with facts, you haven't provided any. That would be fine if you were not writing as if I was wrong and you were right and you had the proof to back it up.


Actually, I have. Reading comprehension. I actually stated where my data could be found. If it helps you out, my data is on this website, in the Handguns section, in sticky form at the top of the Handguns Ammunition section.

Originally Posted By Landric:So, consider this a win if you want to, you won't get another response out of me. I'll just continue to collect the same data I always have and comfort myself with the knowledge that its all meaningless when compared to shot placement. I have yet to meet anyone who can tell the difference between a 147 grain 9mm and a 230 grain .45 ACP passing through their heart or brain. All the rest of it is angles dancing on the heads of pins.


I consider it nothing. None of your posts have provided any factually supporting data. You cannot prove the .357mag is better than 9mm.

SD307  [Member]
6/29/2011 5:11:40 PM EST
Here is the study I was refering to http://www.abaris.net/info/ballistics/handgun-stopping-power.htm

357 Magnum - Once the king of law enforcement handguns, this caliber has also been replaced by large capacity auto-pistols. The data collected for this caliber came from 2 and 3 inch revolvers, not the longer barreled type. The top round was the Remington 124 grain JHP followed by the same loading by Federal. Both loads achieved a 91% one hit stop rating. Most other loads ranked in the 80% area with the Federal 158 grain Hydra-Shok achieving a 78% rating.

357 SIG - This is the most current law enforcement cartridge and therefore, shooting data is limited. The top rated cartridges were the Remington and Federal 125 grain JHPs. Both were rated at 91% one shot stops. Of the 9 loads evaluated, the poorest was the Federal 158 grain Hydra-Shok which was involved in 41 shootings with 32 one shot stops for a 78% rating.

9mm - This was the first semiauto pistol to be used extensively by police agencies and replaced the 38 Special and 357 Magnum round. Early loadings of the 147 grain round caused major stopping problems however current 147 grain designs are vastly superior. Clearly the best 9mm loads are those driven to +P+ pressures. Of the 20 loadings evaluated, the top load was the Federal 115 grain JHP +P+ involved in 209 shootings with 190 one shot stops for a 91% rating. The Winchester 115 grain JHP +P+ and 127 grain Ranger SXT +P+ both had 90% one shot stops. All five loads driven to +P+ pressures ranked in the top 5 followed by all bullets loaded to +P pressures. Rounds manufactured to standard pressure ratings comprised the bottom 12 loadings in the study.

40 S&W - This caliber has become extremely popular with law enforcement agencies due to the perceived deficiencies of the 9mm round. All manufacturers have at least 2 loadings of this caliber and it has served very well. The Remington 165 grain Golden Saber was used in 311 shootings and made 292 one shot stops for a 94% rating followed closely by the CCI 165 and 155 grain loadings and the Federal 155 grain Hydra-Shok bullet. These 3 loads made 93% one shot stops. Other manufacturers loads in the 90% range were the Federal 155 grain JHP and the CorBon 135 and 150 grain JHP bullets. Thirteen other loadings were evaluated with the poorest being the Winchester 180 grain FMJ that was involved in 134 encounters and made 95 (71%) one shot stops.

45 ACP - This caliber has been around for almost 100 years and is still the top rated round. More police agencies are using this round due to its proven stopping ability. The large diameter, heavy bullet is the basis for the "momentum" theory of stopping power however actual results in shootings show a mix of "light and fast" and "slow and heavy" rounds. The Remington 185 grain Golden Saber was involved in 148 shootings and caused 142 one shot stops for a 96% rating followed closely by the Federal 230 grain Hydra-Shok which caused 200 one shot stops in 211 shootings for a 95% rating. Eight of the 16 loadings examined rated above 90% one shot stops while 5 others rated in the 80s. The poorest stoppers were the Remington, Federal and Winchester 230 grain FMJ rounds which achieved 62% one shot stops.

SD307  [Member]
6/29/2011 5:15:53 PM EST
Now I am sure you will find Evan Marshall's results to be full of wholes and over all worthless.

It does show 357 mag from short barrel pistols at 91% one shot stop and 9mm at 91% one shot stop. With 40S&W to be the top preformer at 93 %.

The OPs question was not about one shot stop, terminal effectivness, or 40 S&W it was about 9mm and 357 mag specfically out of snubbys.

It took 2 seconds for me to find and you could have done it yourself instead of acting like a lazy undergrad.
FAIL-SAFE  [Team Member]
6/30/2011 2:19:20 PM EST
The problem is I've read that stuff, and you are right, I do believe that Evan Marshall's and Ed Sanow's "study" or "data" is wholly bogus. I'm not the only one though.

There is this

http://firearmstactical.com/briefs24.htm#Too%20Good%20To%20Be%20True

This
http://www.firearmstactical.com/streetstoppers.htm

And this

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

Oh, cant forget this
http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-discrepancies.htm

That one

http://www.firearmstactical.com/undeniable-evidence.htm

Also this one

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


Conveniently those articles were in the same place, they took a bit longer to link them because there are more of them. This is how you debate. You produce data, I shoot it down.



An honest question for you; have you read the "information" put forth by Marshall & Sanow? I mean actually read it? What do you think those percentages mean? 91 times out of 100 a single shot stopped the badguy? Do tell
FAIL-SAFE  [Team Member]
6/30/2011 2:27:07 PM EST
Also, I cant let you forget you made these statements:


If 9mm was so much better then evidence would prove it out. It has not the 9mm offers an advantage only in capacity. So many short coming exist in 9mm that 357 Sig, and 40 S&W were researched, marketed, and proven successful and are now both very common LE rounds over the 9mm. Most LE agencies have voted with thier feet and found 9mm wanting.


Still waiting for you to provide proof that supports such comments. Funny you forgot about that.
John_Wayne777  [Team Member]
7/1/2011 4:16:08 AM EST
Originally Posted By SD307:
If 9mm was so much better then evidence would prove it out. It has not the 9mm offers an advantage only in capacity. So many short coming exist in 9mm that 357 Sig, and 40 S&W were researched, marketed, and proven successful and are now both very common LE rounds over the 9mm. Most LE agencies have voted with thier feet and found 9mm wanting.


You're drawing improper conclusions from incomplete data. Several large agencies issue 9mm handguns and have had good results from them. LAPD and NYPD, for example, both issue 9mm sidearms with good JHP loads and neither has much complaint about what their 9mm pistols are doing to bad guys. Many agencies, looking at tightened budgets for training, are pondering going back to 9mm because the shooting results from 9mm have been so good and the ammo is cheaper.

The bottom line is that there's no clear winner in terms of service caliber handguns. When loaded properly and put in the right place all of them seem to get the job done. Training is many orders of magnitude more predictive in the outcome of a fight than caliber, so it behooves the individual paying his own ammo tab to get as much training bang for his buck as possible. 9mm is the cheapest centerfire handgun to feed these days.

If 9mm exhibited a measurable disadvantage on the street it would be easily demonstrable from real world shooting results....and yet when you look at LE shootings in aggregate it isn't. That's a clue.
Landric  [Team Member]
7/1/2011 4:36:07 AM EST
Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
Originally Posted By SD307:
If 9mm was so much better then evidence would prove it out. It has not the 9mm offers an advantage only in capacity. So many short coming exist in 9mm that 357 Sig, and 40 S&W were researched, marketed, and proven successful and are now both very common LE rounds over the 9mm. Most LE agencies have voted with thier feet and found 9mm wanting.


You're drawing improper conclusions from incomplete data. Several large agencies issue 9mm handguns and have had good results from them. LAPD and NYPD, for example, both issue 9mm sidearms with good JHP loads and neither has much complaint about what their 9mm pistols are doing to bad guys. Many agencies, looking at tightened budgets for training, are pondering going back to 9mm because the shooting results from 9mm have been so good and the ammo is cheaper.

The bottom line is that there's no clear winner in terms of service caliber handguns. When loaded properly and put in the right place all of them seem to get the job done. Training is many orders of magnitude more predictive in the outcome of a fight than caliber, so it behooves the individual paying his own ammo tab to get as much training bang for his buck as possible. 9mm is the cheapest centerfire handgun to feed these days.

If 9mm exhibited a measurable disadvantage on the street it would be easily demonstrable from real world shooting results....and yet when you look at LE shootings in aggregate it isn't. That's a clue.


I started in LE when the big switch was going on from 9x19 to .40 S&W. My agency still had the 9x19 and used Winchester Ranger 115 grain JHP (+P+). We had good results with it, but when it came time to replace our aging Berettas, we went to .40 S&W in the HK USP Compact. It wasn't because we had a bad time with 9x19, but because "everyone" was going to .40 S&W because it was "better".

My current department just made the switch to Glocks from Beretta 96s. I tried to convince the chief to go with 9x19 Glocks instead of .40 S&W Glocks because modern 9x19 ammunition is effective, its cheaper, and its easier to shoot well. He agreed with me on everything, but declined to do so. The chief is a gun guy (who carries a 9x19 Glock 19 on his own time), but he felt that he couldn't sell the switch "backwards" to the 9x19 because all the non-gun people at the department would see that as a step back in effectiveness.

The NC SBI recently switched back to the 9x19 from the .40. It is happening.
VASCAR2  [Member]
7/1/2011 12:51:54 PM EST
I to have been in LE a long time and when I started most officers carried model 66 S&W loaded with +P 38 HPs. I personally carried Remington or WW 125 JHP 357 until the 145 grain Silver tip came on the scene which used low flash powder and was vary controllable. I changed departments and was issued a new S&W model 439 with WW +P+ 115 grain JHP. At various times I carried the 439, 6904 and 5904 with this +P+ load until the department switched to Glock 22's and 23's and 180 grain WW JHP. I personally felt the 9MM was a little more manageable in the Glock than the 40 S&W cartridge. Glock is certainly easier for non gun enthusiast to use and our troops who only shot when required could use the Glock 22 effectively even if the Glock with 180 grain loads had a little more recoil than the 115 grain 9MM. I personally place more value in hitting the target and tactics than caliber. The semi auto definitely is easier to reload than a revolver and has the higher capacity which doesn't hurt. When I first started in LE the 9MM S&W 39 and Colt 1911 were carried by LEO but not on a very large scale. Overall I think the transition to semi auto pistol from revolver has been more important than the difference between 9MM, 40/10 MM, 357 Sig and 45 ACP. With the proper training and practice any of these calibers with good HP will go a long way to getting you home at the end of the day. I personally would prefer to carry a 9MM revolver over the 357 Mag 2 to 2.5 inch revolver. The 9 MM defense loads have less blast and flash than your typical 357 Mag out of short barrels. The 9 MM in a revolver has better velocity than any 38 Spl +P or +P+ load with the same length barrel. With the moon clips the S&W 5 shot revolver is pretty quick to get back in action and are concealable. If I still carried a 9 MM on duty I wouldn't mind a 5 shot 9 MM revolver as a backup. When I carried the 5904 I carried a Keltec P11 as a backup. The Keltec was reliable inexpensive insurance that used the same mags as my 5904. I really appreciate a backup which uses the same ammo as primary gun. Basically you have to be able effectively employ what you have when SHTF..
Paid Advertisement
--