Posted by amd6547: You are obviously personally invested here in an irrational crusade against the 357 magnum as a self defense round.
Not at all. It's just that it is not my first choice
The question was about
home defense, and most people who have addressed the question rationally on an informed basis have said that shooting a .357 Magnum indoors is not a good idea, and many have said that there are better choices. Noise is the reason most often cited. Measurements and conclusions based on scientific medical studies trump subjectively based opinions for me. It is not untested theory.
How about outdoors?
We see caliber wars here all the time. Is a .380 adequate? What about a .22LR? Which is better, the 9MM or the .45? And then there are those who seem to believe the .357 Magnum to be ideal.
There are obviously two factors; the effectiveness of the round, and the effectiveness of the firearm with its round.
This is a rather thorough official FBI report in the effectiveness of common service handgun cartridges. It is worth reading in its entirety at least once.
From the conclusion; note that these relate to the performance of common handgun service rounds, not high intensity rifle cartridges, which are a different story:
Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable and "knock down" power is a myth. The critical element is penetration. The bullet must pass through the large, blood bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding. Penetration less than 12 inches is too little, and, in the words of two of the participants in the 1987 Wound Ballistics Workshop, "too little penetration will get you killed. Given desirable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of hole made by the bullet.
Emphasis added
Given
adequate penetration and
adequate expansion, and thus assuming powerful loads with the right bullets, a .38 Special or 9MM will create the same wound channel and will thus be just as effective as a .357 Magnum in terms of "stopping" effectiveness, and for most people, it will be easier to shoot either of them rapidly--say, four rounds per second--and score hits.
A .40 S&W or a .45 ACP might be more effective,
per shot. As a defensive choice? There has been a lot of electronic ink put down on that question, and I do not know the answer. I do know that I prefer the .45 ACP indoors.
This is obvious from a previous rant in this thread which you ended by disparaging the six round capacity of the most common platforms.
I won't disparage it, but this does bring into play other aspects of the effectiveness of the firearm. Training I have had has made me aware of the need to deal with an assailant who is likely to be moving rapidly at close range, and of the fact that, regardless of the round used, the likelihood of hitting areas that are not vital may well create the need for several very rapid hits to stop him. Adding in the very real possibility that there will be more than one attacker makes the capacity of the firearm something that has to be weighed. Will six be enough? Probably. Is "probably" good enough? Consider the stakes.
These factors have led me to adopt a 9MM double column. Simple risk management.
I have a .357 Magnum revolver. I keep .38 special cartridges in it. If I were to take it on a trail where dangerous animals would be a concern, I would carry magnum rounds. But I do not need them for self defense against humans.
I will add that when one is buying any revolver of sufficient weight that would enable one to shoot .357 Magnum loads with any degree of proficiency, it would be prudent to buy the Magnum version rather than one that is limited to .38 Specials. The question then becomes what to put in it and when.
