10mm or 357 mag?

The .357 magnum has made and time-tested its place in the power spectrum. I've not shot the 10mm but as we've already seen in this thread, it has a lot going for it.

One thing people keep bringing up in .357 is the ability to easily shoot .38 special. The only drawbacks are getting crud deeper in the chamber when shooting and maybe a slight loss in traveling the unrifled chamber space. Otherwise, being able to effortlessly swap between two popular caliber choices is a big selling point. But wait... can't a 10mm shoot .40?

It requires at least one extra part but it's not hard to change out the barrel in a Glock 20. Most shooters can do it on the fly with just minutes of practice. Supposedly, a good conversion barrel* makes the Glock 20 into a very reliable .40 S&W or .357 Sig. Of course, those good conversion barrels close the gap in price between G20s and fancier .357 revolvers. Following from a discussion I started here, doesn't that give the properly accessorized G20 a leg up on the .357's multi-caliber bonus?

* I haven't actually done this and don't own any Glocks. I've read that you don't need to change magazines or springs. While the first claim seemed too good to be true, a lot of people here and elsewhere report having no problems with it. I was much more concerned about spring differences but I haven't seen too many problems posted on that either...
 
Glocks are great for barrel / caliber changes, but I don't know about other manufacturers. But then you are limited in your options with people that make 10mm pistols, and some of them are quite pricey. If it isn't a Glock or EAA, it looks like it will be over $1,000.

http://www.hyattgunstore.com/10mm/
 
Originally posted by Sharpsdressed Man:

They are, for the most part, equal. If you need more penetration or flatter shooting, the .357 MIGHT give an edge. If you need more power and a bigger hole to begin with, or higher capacity, the 10mm MIGHT give you the edge. They are so close, the barrel length, how they are handloaded, or capacity are probably the only serious variables.
Click to expand...

To me, the biggest variable is how well you shoot them under pressure. If the firearm is to be used for SD against two legged and four legged predators, then one needs to have a firearm that is accurate for them, not somebody on the interweb. A 15 shot mag means nuttin if you can't hit what you're pointing at. Odds are, big cats and bear are not gonna give your time for more than one or two shots before they are upon you. Having something on your side/under your shoulder that is comfortable and easy to draw, means it will be there and accessible when it's needed. Having something that draws fast, gets on target naturally in your hand, is an adequate caliber for the possible threat and you can hit the spot you're aiming at with the first three quick shots is what you need. Anything else is just window dressing.
 
I'd go with the 10MM because 1911A1 guns are very easy to carry, quick to battery, and super fast to reload. But an "L" frame .357 wouldn't be a bad choice.
 
As far as self defense purposes, all the .357 is doing is adding a couple hundred FPS to a .38 special or 9mm bullet. If you think 200fps will be the difference between saving your life, then go for it. But 200fps does not make up for the extra recoil, noise, muzzle flash, and limited capacity.
Click to expand...

Actually the 357 gives you 500 FPS with the same bullet from the same gun over a 38 Special. You are correct, not everyone can handle this properly. For me personally I have no use for a 38 Special.
 
This thread, both in the original question AND in the answers, is nothing more than a backdoor revolver vs. Semi debate. Same crap, different day. The bias is almost laughable
 
This thread, both in the original question AND in the answers, is nothing more than a backdoor revolver vs. Semi debate. Same crap, different day. The bias is almost laughable
Click to expand...

Seems that way.
 
I spent a lot of time some years ago compiling ballistics data for several calibers from ammunition companies that published ballistics data for their products online.

Two of the calibers I collected data on were the 10mm and the .357Mag. What I found was that they are virtually ballistic twins. You get a little bit of energy advantage in the .357Mag with very light bullets. You get a little bit of momentum advantage (plotted in scaled form as power factor in the plot) in the 10mm with very heavy bullets.

In my opinion, there's not much point in trying to differentiate between the two in terms of terminal performance.

attachment.php


attachment.php
 
Nanuk said:
Actually the 357 gives you 500 FPS with the same bullet from the same gun over a 38 Special. You are correct, not everyone can handle this properly. For me personally I have no use for a 38 Special.
Click to expand...

True, the leap between .38 special and .357 is greater than 9mm vs .357, I should have elaborated more in my comment.

The .38+P's I have on hand are listed at 1050fps
The .357's I have on hand are listed at 1450fps

Give or take, this is about what you see commonly for these rounds, so again I should have elaborated more in my comment as I was talking mostly about 9mm vs .357.

With use in a full size revolver, I agree go with full stoked .357's. In a full size gun recoil with the .357 is not really an issue. Although, when talking about snub's, I stick with .38 +P. I used to own a Model 60 and with .357's that thing was a beast, and followup shots were significantly slower than with .38 +P's, that was the 3" version too. On top of that, muzzle blast and noise were off the charts.

Now as far as 9mm vs .357, the gap is closed significantly. Just talking +P rounds, and discounting +P+, you are looking at around a 200fps difference with most loads. Even though the recoil with .357 in a full size gun is not a huge problem for most, I can still put followup shots on target quicker and with more accuracy with a 9mm than a .357. And this is in no part due to me being more familiar with auto's. I learned to shoot on revolvers, my first 4 handguns were revolvers, and for a while I really had no interest in auto's.

For me at least, the extra 200 fps is not enough for me to choose the .357 over the 9mm. If I can have a gun that shoots the same size bullet, that is smaller, lighter, with 3x the capacity, and I can achieve faster and more accurate followup shots with it, that by far makes up for a 200fps loss.

Now as far as hunting purposes go, I stand by my previous comment. Anything the .357 does, the .45 Colt and .44 Magnum do better. There are some things that the .45 Colt and the .44 Magnum can achieve that the .357 cant, there are NO things that the .357 can achieve that the .45 Colt and .44 Magnum cant do.

JohnKSa said:
Two of the calibers I collected data on were the 10mm and the .357Mag. What I found was that they are virtually ballistic twins.
Click to expand...

With all being equal, why not choose the round that makes a bigger hole? I would think the 10mm being a larger diameter should factor into that somewhere.
 
Last edited:
.357 Magnum hands down.

It not only can take down big game but if you need to shoot a squirrel for food you can put in a standard .38 spl FMJ and have lots of clean meat left over. Hit it with the 10mm and you'd be lucky to find a chunk.

See a snake? Have a speed loader with snake shot. Yes they make snake shot for bottom feeders but you'll have to manually work the slide.
 
With all being equal, why not choose the round that makes a bigger hole? I would think the 10mm being a larger diameter should factor into that somewhere.
Click to expand...
If you need a reason to pick one over the other, that's as good a reason as any to make a choice that doesn't matter anway, IMO.

With non-expanding ammunition, I guess you could make a case for the larger diameter meaning something if you worked at it. With expanding ammunition, my guess is that any difference in the expanded diameter is due to the ammunition designer's choices and not due to any inherent advantage that one caliber has over the other.
 
I own one 10mm and four .357 Magnums and the choice to me comes down to whether you prefer a semi-automatic or a revolver. If you prefer a semi-auto, then the 10mm is about the only cartridge that can give you magnum revolver-like performance without the need to use an overly large, heavy, or expensive gun or an oddball cartridge with extremely expensive and rare ammo (a relative thing I know when talking about 10mm). If, on the other hand, you're OK with a revolver then the .357 Magnum is the better choice due to a much better selection and price for both guns and ammunition. While I like both cartridges, I prefer a revolver so I lean towards .357 Magnum.
 
I am interested in the 10mm. If I could afford it, I could see buying one. But I have a 357 Mag, and I think that's really all that is needed.
To me a 10mm might be one of those guns of interest or desire- but just never having one.
I have to admit, deep inside, I probably prefer a S&W revolver.
 
Last edited:
It requires at least one extra part but it's not hard to change out the barrel in a Glock 20. Most shooters can do it on the fly with just minutes of practice. Supposedly, a good conversion barrel* makes the Glock 20 into a very reliable .40 S&W or .357 Sig. Of course, those good conversion barrels close the gap in price between G20s and fancier .357 revolvers. Following from a discussion I started here, doesn't that give the properly accessorized G20 a leg up on the .357's multi-caliber bonus?
Click to expand...
It seems like you're making a pretty big stretch to claim that it's almost as easy to shoot .40 S&W from a 10mm as it is to shoot .38 Special from a .357 Magnum. But shooting .38 in a .357 merely requires that you stuff .38's in a .357. You needn't take anything apart, you certainly don't need to purchase an accessory barrel that will run you well over a hundred bucks or more.

To your assertion that a 10mm chambered Glock can effectively run .40 S&W with a barrel swap and nothing else, I am happy to report that this has been exactly my experience. I have 1,600 flawless .40 S&W through my KKM barrel equipped Glock 29 and it runs, well, perfectly. I shoot both. 2008 built, MML prefix G29 with 5,000 documented rounds through it.
 
To the subject of 10mm vs .357 Magnum, my answer is always going to be the same. If it's -ME-, the answer is -BOTH- and I won't ever waiver from it. .357 Mag since 1989, 10mm Auto since 1992.

If you aren't an enthusiast, .357 Magnum is far less hassle.
If you aren't a handloader, either one is expensive to feed, but at least the .357 gives you what you expect when you buy the factory ammo where 10mm is a crapshoot if you aren't an enthusiast and researching the ammo you purchase.

As a handloader, .357 Magnum is far, far, far more versatile and friendly to the handloader. It's more versatile because bullet options blow away what you can find in .400" diameter. It's more friendly because every possible facet of the key component in the loaded round is easier. (that key component being the brass cartridge case)

10mm has a "neat" factor attached because most folks aren't up-close familiar with it and many folks who are seemingly otherwise "gun people" may not have even heard of it.

You could make an argument that nobody makes a 10mm pistol that will absolutely murderize your shooting hand, but there are a number of .357 Magnum revolvers on the market that can/will cripple a human person with extended shooting. I'm not saying that "generally, .357 Mag is harder to shoot", and I don't mean that in any way. But I am saying that nobody has built a 10mm scandium J-frame or 10mm LCR that would probably make your hand fall off after two boxes of ammo.
 
And to the folks who want to call this merely a semi-auto vs. revolver debate disguised as otherwise, somebody should line up a Coonan with a similarly full-size 10mm pistol and have their debate that way.

A common knee-jerk reaction to this suggestion is typically "well yeah, but that's one single specialized particular handgun, it's not the mainstream or the typical" Now this may be true, but these handguns are not one-offs, oddities or rare, and these handguns just run and run and run.

Get one. They're awesome. Mine runs beautifully and it loves the full-bore stuff. It's a bit bigger dimensionally than a 1911, but not in any sadistic or cartoonish way like a Desert Eagle is. A Coonan is a fantastic pistol and makes this little debate more compelling.
 
I don't think I've ever seen ballistics from a Coonan, but I would dare say that because it doesn't have the barrel-cylinder gap of a revolver, that the ballistics from one should be better than a revolver of similar barrel length. Maybe even better than a 6" revolver, I'm not sure. The .357 in an autoloader would give it even further advantage over a 10mm.

I really enjoy shooting my 10mm, but I miss having a good .357 Mag (although not a S&W M&P 340, my hand ached for days after shooting that thing) around, and I would gladly swap for one.
 
It would be interesting to see the ballistics and gel tests with sample of EQUAL BARREL LENGTH. The 10mm ballistics are usually cited from a 4.6 "or 5.0" barrel. An aftermarket 6" barrel would put it comparable to a 6" barreled .357 for the tests, even though designs would make the auto way shorter in overall length that an equally long barreled revolver. That is a factor to some, also. Let's call it "packability". It think the 10mm's ability to easily deliver heavier weight bullets might give it an edge.
 
I've had great fun slinging .357cal cast lead 180 grain LTC slugs from my Coonan, though I didn't push them really, really hard. 1,220 FPS average, which is a typical (real!) 10mm kind of load. This was with a very casual powder charge, IMO. If I constructed those with a heavy dose of something slower, I know I could ramp them up a good bit.

I can say with zero reservation that 180gr LTC in .357 going 1,200 from a Coonan is much more sedate & pleasing than 1,200 FPS 180gr FMJ's from my Glock 29. It's... not close. :p
I don't think I've ever seen ballistics from a Coonan, but I would dare say that because it doesn't have the barrel-cylinder gap of a revolver, that the ballistics from one should be better than a revolver of similar barrel length. Maybe even better than a 6" revolver, I'm not sure.
Click to expand...
I've only compared one of my 6" .357 revolvers with the exact same handloads that I've chrono'd thru my 5" Coonan and the Coonan does have the edge, but it wasn't very wide and was typically 25-50 FPS difference and not much more. Frankly, if I switched .357 revolvers, that difference might shrink even more.

Coonan does now offer an accessory SIX inch barrel also. :cool:
 
What would be more interesting to see is if the 10mm 220 gr loads kill anything deader than a 180 gr. .357 load.

Take Buffalo Bore 180gr loads.

https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=100

From a 5 inch S&W 27 it gets 1398 fps <-- not bad, huh?

And 10mm 220 gr.

https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=219

1201 fps - Para Ordinance 1911 with Nowlin 5 inch barrel

Now tell me if a deer or whatever shot with either load would know any difference?

None, right?

And as for self defense both rounds at full power are, well, good enough, right?

So that leaves what one prefers. Revolver or semi-auto. Heavy gun or light gun. 6 shots or more.

Personally I would not loose any sleep wither I have a 6 inch N frame .357 or 10mm Glock/1911.

Deaf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top