357 mag compare to the 40 and 45?

It's really interesting how we talk about most effective calibers, when it's the bullets within the calibers that are more important.

For example, the best .40 caliber might be superior to most .45 ACP, but the best of the .45 ACP may best anything in .40 caliber--and so forth.
 
The best handgun hollowpoint projectiles for "very high speed" use are Gold Dots - across most calibers. The Gold Dot jacket is a thick copper electroplate over the lead core - it sticks to the lead better than most other jacket types.

The only competitor to the Gold Dot in the "don't shed the jacket" sweepstakes is the Hornady XTP, and it doesn't expand as fat or as fast - it's a "deep punch" design.

Because Gold Dots don't fly apart when driven beyond their design specs, they're the slug of choice for Buffalo Bore and DoubleTap Ammo. Both of those outfits drive 125gr and 158gr Gold Dot slugs to bat-outta-hell speeds. Of the two, Buffalo Bore is a bit hotter and a bit more of a "careful load" overall - narrower speed gaps between rounds in the same gun, a bit more accuracy.

That said, I have some remaining 2006-era DoubleTap 125gr 357Mag full house rounds. One of which blew up a bowling ball at 20 paces, sent fist-sized pieces of the concrete core back past my feet.

The 45ACP and 40S&W don't have as much energy on tap. I would bet my Doubletaps against any load in either of those calibers shooting any possible load. And I think the BuffBore version would be better yet, although pricey :).

BUT!!!

There's a penalty for really big power in a smaller bullet. Two, actually.

First, if you look at efficiency related to raw energy, a 45ACP load with 450ft/lbs of energy on tap can do as much stopping as a 40S&W load with 500ft/lbs energy, or a 357Mag with 550-600ft/lbs energy. In other words, as the bullet get narrower, you have to compensate with more raw power.

Second, the 45ACP can do very effective stopping with subsonic loads. The 357Magnum absolutely cannot - not in the same class anyways. To match or exceed 45ACP effectiveness the 357 has to go supersonic, with a major increase in noise, esp. indoors. (I'm told that some of the 40S&W 180gr barely-subsonic loads are pretty effective; I don't know if the best 45ACPs exceed the best 40S&W subsonics but it wouldn't surprise me if they did. That said, law enforcement seems to prefer the 40S&W 155gr supersonic loads.)

Now, that noise factor with edgy 357s isn't all bad. Lt. Col. Dave Grossman's book "On Killing" goes into the psychological factors of warfare, including big noises. I strongly suspect this translates into personal defense...fire an edgy full-house 357 load at one of a pack of goblins and with or without a hit, the message is "look out, dude's got a cannon!"

I also suspect, but have no proof, that very high-energy 357 loads involving 125gr projectiles MIGHT shatter bone if they hit the rib or sternum on the way in, sending secondary bone projectiles inwards. I don't think any subsonic loads will do that. Some of the edgier 135gr 40S&Ws might, and the better flavors of 10mm probably have as much chance as the best 125gr 357s if not more.

The other issue is recoil. I carry a 42oz gun. In plain terms, it's not very size-efficient and carrying it daily is a chore - but I do it without fail. I simply like this gun...and if all I have is six rounds, I want to make them very, very serious.
 
Looking at energy, full-house .357 Magnums, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP +P are all quite similar when loaded by the mainstream manufacturers (Winchester, Federal, Remington, Speer, Cor-Bon, and Hornady) in that they can all achieve 500-600 ft.lbs. The difference that the .357 offers is that, particularly with heavier bullets, it can, in some loadings, offer significantly deeper penetration than the .40 or .45.

When we start looking at the custom ammo houses like Buffalo Bore, Double Tap, and Grizzly, however, we find that the .357 Magnum can be loaded to levels well beyond that of the .40 S&W or .45ACP. At this level, the only semi-auto calibers that can match or exceed the .357 are some of the less common ones like 9x25 Dillon, 10mm, .45 Super, .45 Win Mag, .460 Rowland, or .50 AE.
 
i thought the slower heavier round transfered more of it's energy to the target ? that would make the .45 the "hardest" hitter of the bunch........right?
 
i thought the slower heavier round transfered more of it's energy to the target ? that would make the .45 the "hardest" hitter of the bunch........right?
Click to expand...

Not really, no. Newton's Third Law states that for every action there is an equal and opposing reaction. Therefore, the more energy with which a bullet strikes its target, the more the target will resist the penetration of the bullet and the more energy the bullet must expend in order to continue to penetrate. This is all, of course, assuming that other factors such as bullet diameter and expansion are equal (though bullet diameter is a relatively small factor in energy transfer). Assuming that you have two non-expanding bullets of equal diameter, the one with the most kinetic energy will transfer the most energy to the target.

When we talk about expanding bullets, things get a bit more complicated. The more a bullet expands, the more energy it must expend into the target. When looking at a .357 Magnum and a .45 ACP, we find that the expansion of both with premium bullets is remarkably similar (they're both excellent). The .357 Magnum's high velocity facilitates good expansion, but the realatively large HP cavity of a .45 ACP does as well. While some will say that the .45 has an advantage because of it's larger diameter, it must be noted that expanded diameters between the two are often nearly the same. For this reason, I would suggest that a .357 Magnum and a .45 ACP which penetrate and expand approximately the same amount and have roughly the same amount of energy will be about equally effective.
 
Second, the 45ACP can do very effective stopping with subsonic loads. The 357Magnum absolutely cannot - not in the same class anyways. To match or exceed 45ACP effectiveness the 357 has to go supersonic, with a major increase in noise, esp. indoors.
Click to expand...

That's a great point Jim, and one which I take to heart by carrying/staging only subsonic .38s or .45s in a situation where one might have to shoot indoors or from a car. I think anyone planning to shoot full power .357s without ear protection (given the opportunity to use something else) is being extremely foolish with their hearing and that of their family members.

From http://www.freehearingtest.com/hia_gunfirenoise.shtml

.25 ACP 155.0 dB
.32 LONG 152.4 dB
.32 ACP 153.5 dB
.380 157.7 dB
9mm 159.8 dB
.38 S&W 153.5 dB
.38 Spl 156.3 dB
.357 Magnum 164.3 dB
.41 Magnum 163.2 dB
.44 Spl 155.9 dB
.45 ACP 157.0 dB
.45 COLT 154.7 dB

.40 S&W isn't listed, but I would bet it's over 160 dB given its high pressure and other similarities to the 9mm.

With the decibel scale, a 10 point increase means 10 times louder.

Even shotguns don't make it to the level of the .357

.410 Bore 28" barrel 150dB
26" barrel 150.25dB
18" barrel 156.30dB
20 Gauge 28" barrel 152.50dB
22" barrel 154.75dB
12 Gauge 28" barrel 151.50dB
26" barrel 156.10dB
18" barrel 161.50dB

I've not purposely "listened" to a lot of gunfire, but I have forgotten on a few occasions to put on my earmuffs while shooting .38s, and they are bad enough to cause ringing and a bit of a dazing effect, even outdoors. I had a .357 Derringer used next to me at the range (6 feet away) and that was painful even through earmuffs. I LOVE shooting my full power 158 grain .357 reloads in my 686-4, but wouldn't consider it in an unprotected situation.
 
Last edited:
Webleymkv said
Not really, no. Newton's Third Law states that for every action there is an equal and opposing reaction. Therefore, the more energy with which a bullet strikes its target, the more the target will resist the penetration of the bullet and the more energy the bullet must expend in order to continue to penetrate.
Click to expand...
emphasis mine.

I disagree with this statement. If you changed "resist" to "react to" it would be more accurate.
The amount of force needed to penetrate an object is constant. Newtons law in this case would be the transfer of energy from the projectile to the object.
The higher energy projectile may transfer more energy to the object, but it doesn't follow that the object is more "resistant".
 
As a function of drag...

... which goes up, much like energy, with the square of velocity...

... net resistance will be higher against the higher velocity round.
 
The .357 is written by notable experienced writers as about the same, but there is a huge difference when using 125 gr SJHPs in the .357 Magnum in stopping power (on people and lesser sized targets).

If you use the 125 gr loads (full house loads) the .357 surpasses both the .40 and the .45. The reason is the fact the bullet is going mighty fast (around 1500 fps out of a 6" barrel). It is heavy enough and wrapped together so well in this configuration it behaves like a bomb when striking flesh. It penetrates well and expands devastatingly well.
 
The latest 125gr 357 full-house loads by Buffalo Bore and Doubletap can hit 1600fps or more in some 4" barrel guns (Ruger or late-model S&W "faster" barrels). At those speeds the only slug I trust is the Gold Dot.
 
I disagree with this statement. If you changed "resist" to "react to" it would be more accurate.
The amount of force needed to penetrate an object is constant. Newtons law in this case would be the transfer of energy from the projectile to the object.
The higher energy projectile may transfer more energy to the object, but it doesn't follow that the object is more "resistant".
Click to expand...

When I read this, I thought I agreed at first, but I was thinking that its almost like the effect water has when you hit (or jump in ) it. Jump off a dock into the water, everything is good....jump into the same water from 500 feet up, you are gonna splat like a bug on a windshield....same water, but much different effect on the same body hitting it...the harder you hit something, the more resistance there is, right?;)
 
Very interesting posts. When it comes down to comparsion the three are very close in stopping power. Too much if a person is going to use the round indoors for self-defense. My home defense gun is a Model 10 4 inch heavy barrel 38 special with Buffalo Bores LSWCHP 158 gr. Bullet placement is what it is all about. Penetration and accuracy is very good enough with this round in a 4 inch revolver. Recoil is moderate and follow-up shots are easier.

I shoot 40SW and 357 full power rounds too. Only outdoors. Too me these rounds were develope for outdoor situations were penatration was important . That is why law enforcement went away from the 38 special.

Bottom line: Any of the three will more than get the job done. The difference is more about the shooter than the three calibers. I think far too many times the concern is about more stopping power and the size of the bullet. I still believe that shot placement is the key to winning a gunfight. Most of the gunfights are over in about three to four rounds. The ability of a person to get hits will determine if he or she survives. I think whether a person uses a 357 or 40SW is secondary.

My take,
Howard
 
Force applied by a projectile is maximized by decelerating the projectile as fast as possible in the target medium or, said a different way, by reducing the momentum as much as possible in as short a distance as possible.

Here's the problem with the idea that force applied to the target is the key to this question.

All of the momentum that the projectile has was generated in a relatively short barrel--typically 4-6 inches. So unless the bullet stops in the target medium in less than the barrel length it can't apply more force to the target than the recoil applied to your hand.

Most premium self-defense ammunition is designed to penetrate at least 12" which means the momentum will be dissipated in roughly two to three times the distance required to generate it. So if the bullet stops in the attacker it will apply maybe a half to a third of the force applied to your hand in recoil.

The idea that a handgun bullet can apply enough force to move a person around any significant amount is easily disproved by science and confirmed by experiment.

Handgun bullets stop attackers by poking holes in important parts of them or by scaring them into compliance. They don't stop attackers by knocking them down or knocking them back.
 
Originally posted by Buzzcook
Quote:
Webleymkv said
Not really, no. Newton's Third Law states that for every action there is an equal and opposing reaction. Therefore, the more energy with which a bullet strikes its target, the more the target will resist the penetration of the bullet and the more energy the bullet must expend in order to continue to penetrate.
emphasis mine.

I disagree with this statement. If you changed "resist" to "react to" it would be more accurate.
The amount of force needed to penetrate an object is constant. Newtons law in this case would be the transfer of energy from the projectile to the object.
The higher energy projectile may transfer more energy to the object, but it doesn't follow that the object is more "resistant".
Click to expand...

Actually, the amount of force needed to penetrate is not constant. If you look at the Linebaugh penetration tests, you will see that the 530grn Garrett Hammerhead loading actually outpenetrated the the 500grn FMJ .458 Win Mag loading even though the latter had much more energy and momentum. The reason for this is that the 45-70 has a lower ratio of energy to momentum. When diameter and bullet construction are held constant, momentum facilitates penetration while energy retards it.

http://www.handloads.com/misc/linebaugh.penetration.tests.asp

Originally posted by JohnKSa
Here's the problem with the idea that force applied to the target is the key to this question.

All of the momentum that the projectile has was generated in a relatively short barrel--typically 4-6 inches. So unless the bullet stops in the target medium in less than the barrel length it can't apply more force to the target than the recoil applied to your hand.

Most premium self-defense ammunition is designed to penetrate at least 12" which means the momentum will be dissipated in roughly two to three times the distance required to generate it. So if the bullet stops in the attacker it will apply maybe a half to a third of the force applied to your hand in recoil.

The idea that a handgun bullet can apply enough force to move a person around any significant amount is easily disproved by science and confirmed by experiment.

Handgun bullets stop attackers by poking holes in important parts of them or by scaring them into compliance. They don't stop attackers by knocking them down or knocking them back.
Click to expand...

The issue is that the target will react differently to the force of the projectile than the shooter that feels the recoil will. The force of the recoil is distributed out over a relatively large area consisting of the gun and a comparatively large part of the outside of shooter's body. The force of the impacting bullet, however, is focused into a rather small area both outside and inside the target.

While I agree that handguns (nor nearly any man-portable firearm for that matter) has enough force to knock a person down or backwards, the effects of the energy in the form of temporary cavitation can, in certain tissues, cause significant injury beyond the permanent cavity caused by the bullet itself. While many tissues in the body are relatively elastic and won't be significantly harmed by temporary cavitation, others are relatively inelastic and can be torn, ruptured, or otherwise impaired by the displacement caused by temporary cavitation. Kinetic energy transfer comes into play because it is nearly directly proportional to temporary cavitation.
 
...the effects of the energy in the form of temporary cavitation can, in certain tissues, cause significant injury beyond the permanent cavity caused by the bullet itself.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree and my comment about poking holes was oversimplified. In some cases temporary cavity can cause injury and it is true that more energy applied results in larger temporary cavity.
 
Quote:
...the effects of the energy in the form of temporary cavitation can, in certain tissues, cause significant injury beyond the permanent cavity caused by the bullet itself.
I don't disagree and my comment about poking holes was oversimplified. In some cases temporary cavity can cause injury and it is true that more energy applied results in larger temporary cavity.
Click to expand...

John, I wasn't really disagreeing with you as much as I was expanding on your post.
 
'Force applied by a projectile is maximized by decelerating the projectile as fast as possible in the target medium or, said a different way, by reducing the momentum as much as possible in as short a distance as possible.'

To put it another way, its not the fall that kills you, its the sudden stop.
I feel that the 45 has good stopping power, but a 357 can probably do equal amount of damage. And i always thought the 40 was the best of both worlds. Speed of a 357, with stopping power of a 45. Ultimately it depends how accurate you are. Without accuracy, it doesn't matter what kind of gun it is and what kind of ammo it uses.;)
 
To put it another way, its not the fall that kills you, its the sudden stop.
Click to expand...
I realize that this is meant more tongue-in-cheek than as a rigorous statement of physical principles. That said, it takes both the fall and the sudden stop.

There must be the potential for lethality (sufficient momentum/energy from the fall) and a proper application/treatment of the momentum/energy (sudden stop).

Take away either one, or reduce either significantly (not enough momentum or not a sudden enough stop) and neither the fall nor the sudden stop will kill.

The analogy has a tiny flaw and that is that a fall kills only by the application of force while bullets can kill very effectively even with a very small application of force. If you poke a hole in something very important you don't have to apply very much force at all.
 
JohnKSA

Well, it was bound to happen sooner or later - but you left yourself a little bit open.

You're correct about the fall, if it is onto a flat surface.

If you fall onto very bad things, such as pointy or sharp ones, not much force is required.

Cheers,

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