It's commonly said the 357 will take just about any animal in North America including the 2 legged ones. These days over penetration makes some bullets not as effective as others that are designed and tested to penetrate to the correct depth. What may be more important is can the shooter handle a 357 accurately. A accurately placed 380 will be more effective than a inaccurate 45 or 357. The designer bullets today make many calibers effective so it's more about what bullet can you effectually place where it needs to be placed. The 357 isn't easy to control for the average guy, which rarely practices with it. For the majority I would say a well designed 45 defense round will be more successful. This is not about me but my bullet is a well designed 9mm in a good gun.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
1911: .357 vs .45?
- Thread starter Model12Win
- Start date
I have never shot a Coonan 357 Magnum model 1911. I do shoot 357 Magnum out of a full size revolver (Ruger GP 100 4") reasonably often.
I have two model 1911s, both chambered in .45 ACP.
I find 45 ACP very pleasant to shoot out of a government size model 1911. I find shooting 357 Magnum from my GP 100 mildly unpleasant with the first cylinder and progressively less pleasant from there on. I can control my .45 ACP 1911s much better than my 357 Magnum revolver.
I don't know how much having the inertia of a slide and recoil spring absorbing recoil in an auto-loader would tame 357 Magnum, but unless it was very substantial there is no doubt which caliber I would feel better able to defend myself with.
If you absolutely had to have something more powerful than .45 ACP in a model 1911 I would go with 10 mm before I would choose 357 Magnum. Either 10 mm or .45 ACP will make bigger holes than 357 Magnum.
I have two model 1911s, both chambered in .45 ACP.
I find 45 ACP very pleasant to shoot out of a government size model 1911. I find shooting 357 Magnum from my GP 100 mildly unpleasant with the first cylinder and progressively less pleasant from there on. I can control my .45 ACP 1911s much better than my 357 Magnum revolver.
I don't know how much having the inertia of a slide and recoil spring absorbing recoil in an auto-loader would tame 357 Magnum, but unless it was very substantial there is no doubt which caliber I would feel better able to defend myself with.
If you absolutely had to have something more powerful than .45 ACP in a model 1911 I would go with 10 mm before I would choose 357 Magnum. Either 10 mm or .45 ACP will make bigger holes than 357 Magnum.
Thanks.
I'm well aware of that. It is one of the central weaknesses of their statistics. I did not go into that, or other weaknesses, because it wasn't relevant to the point I was making. The OSS figures and conclusions are deeply flawed for a number of reasons.
But, even if we go by their figures and conclusions the OSS percentages, by 2001, showed the 357 magnum with a 125 gr. pill by Federal as the best and that it was in a dead heat with the 230 gr. Hydra-Shok 45acp. So, as far as the "king of the OSS" the .357 Mag in a 125 gr. Federal JHP shares that position with the 45acp. Federal Hydra-Shok. This according to the folks who compiled the OSS statistics and developed the concept.
That's the point I was trying to make. Which led to the main point. It's not the round or the gun, it's how the shooter balances the round, gun and the job you want it for, that matters.
tipoc
Well stated.
When discussing a complex multi-variate event (in this case, terminal performance in the human body) using poorly defined terminology like, ''King of the One Shot Stops'', always leads to confusion and ultimately, disagreement because the debate is set up for failure from the very start.
Setting aside for the time being the numerous flaws and issues surrounding the M&S data―and there are many―M&S (perhaps unknowingly?) attempted to replicate the methodology for predictions of the probability of incapacitation by ammunition that were already in existence in the 1960s and 1970s by researchers like A J Dziemian, L M Sturdivan and T E Sterne at the US Army BRL at Aberdeen Proving Grounds. These researchers, along with quite a few others, relied upon thousands of wound data found within the WDMET project obtained during the Viet Nam war and evaluated them within Gould's Groups for the purpose of predicting lethality/incapacitation across all calibers and various time frames.
Unlike later, poorly executed attempts to do so, the BRL predictive instruments are well-developed, coherent examples of the way in which such analyses should be undertaken.
Last edited:
I can say for certain that the recoil from the Coonan Classic 357 is only slightly more than the recoil of the Government model 1911 45 ACP shooting 230 grain ball ammo. I agree with the above statement about shooting a GP100 with full power loads too....it gets unpleasant in a hurry. For me any way, the Coonan can be shot for hundreds of rounds in one range session.....the muzzle blast and concussion is what dissuades most shooters.
Really the size and weight of the Coonan Classic are the big detractors. It's not all that practical to lug around all day.....Or course that is the Classic model....they make a smaller, more compact version that is probably more concealable....but I've not shot one of them so I can't speak for the performance.
If I were to choose between the Coonan or Government model 1911 for my first 1911 it would definitely be the 45 ACP all the way.....plus you can get a very nice 1911 for 1/2 the price of the Coonan.
Really the size and weight of the Coonan Classic are the big detractors. It's not all that practical to lug around all day.....Or course that is the Classic model....they make a smaller, more compact version that is probably more concealable....but I've not shot one of them so I can't speak for the performance.
If I were to choose between the Coonan or Government model 1911 for my first 1911 it would definitely be the 45 ACP all the way.....plus you can get a very nice 1911 for 1/2 the price of the Coonan.
I just can't imagine a semi-auto handgun can feed a rimmed cartridge as reliably as a rimless one. Even dinky rims like those on the .38 super, and .32 ACP can cause problems.why???
and again, why??
So true. The semi-rimmed .38 Supers and .32 autos should have been made with rimless cartridge cases. John Browning let us down here.I just can't imagine a semi-auto handgun can feed a rimmed cartridge as reliably as a rimless one. Even dinky rims like those on the .38 super, and .32 ACP can cause problems.
John Browning let us down here.
That's hardly a fair statement. You may think Browning "dropped the ball" with semi rimmed cases, but are you aware that at the time, nobody knew what the best shape for the ball was, nor were they even certain of the rules of the game!
Browning designed the .32ACP in 1899. The .38 Auto in 1900. A bit BEFORE the 9mm Parabellum. A time when no one was certain that a case headspacing on the case mouth would reliably work. Browning knew the semi-rimmed case would WORK, and work in an autoloader better than the fully rimmed case. So, that's what he designed.
A few years later, when Browning designed the .45ACP, in 1905, he did make it a rimless case, because the concept had been proven to work. (9mm Parabellum, 1902)
The .38 Super came along in 1929, and I suppose you could say we were let down on that one, because it was semi-rimmed, but that's really just 20/20 hindsight. The Super kept its "parent" case. The only change from the .38ACP was an increased pressure loading, the name, and the marking on the case head. And usually nickel plated cases for the Super.
I just can't imagine a semi-auto handgun can feed a rimmed cartridge as reliably as a rimless one.
Perhaps not, but its not because of the fact that rimmed rounds won't work in autos. Rimmed rounds work fine in autos, PROVIDED the guns are properly built for them. There are literally dozens of designs of machine guns made to use rimmed rounds. The two biggies are .303 British and 7.62x54R Russian.
And then there is every single semi auto .22LR in the world, all using a rimmed round. There are two main factors at work determining the reliability of a semi (or full auto) running a rimmed round. First is the design itself, and second is the execution of the design. Which is where most have their failures, if they have failures.
The action might be perfectly fine with rimmed rounds, but if the maker pairs it with a cheap piece of crap magazine, problems happen. And when problems happen, its the rimmed round that gets the blame.
I've heard about issues with rimlock in .32acp, and while just as possible, I've never seen any reports of this trouble in the .38 Super. It could happen, but no body has made a big deal out of it, as far as I can tell, in all the decades since the round was introduced. The only thing that seems to be in the old literature is how the Super's accuracy was spotty, and when barrel makers began headspacing the Super on the case mouth instead of the traditional method using the tiny rim, complaints about the Super's accuracy basically went away.
Thanks for the good history lesson.That's hardly a fair statement. You may think Browning "dropped the ball" with semi rimmed cases, but are you aware that at the time, nobody knew what the best shape for the ball was, nor were they even certain of the rules of the game!
Browning designed the .32ACP in 1899. The .38 Auto in 1900. A bit BEFORE the 9mm Parabellum. A time when no one was certain that a case headspacing on the case mouth would reliably work. Browning knew the semi-rimmed case would WORK, and work in an autoloader better than the fully rimmed case. So, that's what he designed.
A few years later, when Browning designed the .45ACP, in 1905, he did make it a rimless case, because the concept had been proven to work. (9mm Parabellum, 1902)
The .38 Super came along in 1929, and I suppose you could say we were let down on that one, because it was semi-rimmed, but that's really just 20/20 hindsight. The Super kept its "parent" case. The only change from the .38ACP was an increased pressure loading, the name, and the marking on the case head. And usually nickel plated cases for the Super.
Perhaps not, but its not because of the fact that rimmed rounds won't work in autos. Rimmed rounds work fine in autos, PROVIDED the guns are properly built for them. There are literally dozens of designs of machine guns made to use rimmed rounds. The two biggies are .303 British and 7.62x54R Russian.
And then there is every single semi auto .22LR in the world, all using a rimmed round. There are two main factors at work determining the reliability of a semi (or full auto) running a rimmed round. First is the design itself, and second is the execution of the design. Which is where most have their failures, if they have failures.
The action might be perfectly fine with rimmed rounds, but if the maker pairs it with a cheap piece of crap magazine, problems happen. And when problems happen, its the rimmed round that gets the blame.
I've heard about issues with rimlock in .32acp, and while just as possible, I've never seen any reports of this trouble in the .38 Super. It could happen, but no body has made a big deal out of it, as far as I can tell, in all the decades since the round was introduced. The only thing that seems to be in the old literature is how the Super's accuracy was spotty, and when barrel makers began headspacing the Super on the case mouth instead of the traditional method using the tiny rim, complaints about the Super's accuracy basically went away.