Brian Williams
New member
Some one who has shot both can you give me a compare contrast.
velocity, bullet weights, anything else????
velocity, bullet weights, anything else????
357 mag vs 40 S&W
- Thread starter Brian Williams
- Start date
Poor translation
"Cuius testiculos habes habaeus cardia et cerebellum
When you have their full attention in your grip their hearts and minds will follow"
Not really - misses the thrust of the aphorism. See that second word, "testiculos" ? As in, "testicles" ? The far closer translation is:
"He who holds the testicles, holds the hear and mind," more freely translated as, "When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow." This is incorrectly called "Colson's Corollary" because it was on the wall of Nixon flack Chuck Colson's office during the Watergate fiasco. It predates his little mind by about 2,000 years.
As for your original query, I've owned and shot both. A .357 makes a LOUSY semi-auto cartridge; it's far too long. When was the last time you saw an AutoMag or Desert Eagle anywhere but the movies?
The .40 in a revolver - read S&W 610 - will load and unload faster, due to the much shorter cartridge and case length.
So, do you want a 6-shot gun throwing a feasible maximum 160 grains per cartridge, or a 10 - 16 shot semi throwing a feasible 180 grains per cartridge?
The .357 will give much better penetration due to the higher velocity and smaller frontal area, but I don't shoot through car doors and do not take that into consideration for my purposes. It might be important to you, though. Note that most LE agencies have gone to the .40 and those that haven't have gone to the functional equivalent of its necked-down version: .356 Sig.
If you plan to do handgun hunting or metallic silhouette, the .357 would have an advantage, but I leave mine in the safe and bring the P-16 and 625 when I go to action pistol events.
"Cuius testiculos habes habaeus cardia et cerebellum
When you have their full attention in your grip their hearts and minds will follow"
Not really - misses the thrust of the aphorism. See that second word, "testiculos" ? As in, "testicles" ? The far closer translation is:
"He who holds the testicles, holds the hear and mind," more freely translated as, "When you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow." This is incorrectly called "Colson's Corollary" because it was on the wall of Nixon flack Chuck Colson's office during the Watergate fiasco. It predates his little mind by about 2,000 years.
As for your original query, I've owned and shot both. A .357 makes a LOUSY semi-auto cartridge; it's far too long. When was the last time you saw an AutoMag or Desert Eagle anywhere but the movies?
The .40 in a revolver - read S&W 610 - will load and unload faster, due to the much shorter cartridge and case length.
So, do you want a 6-shot gun throwing a feasible maximum 160 grains per cartridge, or a 10 - 16 shot semi throwing a feasible 180 grains per cartridge?
The .357 will give much better penetration due to the higher velocity and smaller frontal area, but I don't shoot through car doors and do not take that into consideration for my purposes. It might be important to you, though. Note that most LE agencies have gone to the .40 and those that haven't have gone to the functional equivalent of its necked-down version: .356 Sig.
If you plan to do handgun hunting or metallic silhouette, the .357 would have an advantage, but I leave mine in the safe and bring the P-16 and 625 when I go to action pistol events.
Brian Williams
New member
You are correct in your translation, I was hoping TFLer s would be able to understand the true version and I thank you for your info about the 40 / 357 cause I was/am looking at the S&W 646 a 6 shot 40 S&W L frame vs my 586 6 shot 357.
Hammerhead
New member
In revolvers, the .40 would have the advantage of moon clips. The magnum would have the advantage of 125 grain semi jacketed hollow points. These are still the best proven man-stoppers, probably because the 'petals' of the SJHP tend to break off, creating their own wound channels and the core penetrating deeply. I shot a S&W PC .40 (revolver) and it was pretty sweet. A good 686 is probably more versitile.
All in all, a tough choice.
Go with the .357, cause if I remember right, you like lever guns too!
All in all, a tough choice.
Go with the .357, cause if I remember right, you like lever guns too!
juliet charley
New member
Depends on what you shoot--Buffalo Bore's .357 Magnum ammuniton are actually very slightly hotter than the than the hottest factory 10mm ammunition (Double Tap's):
4 inch S&W L frame Mt. Gun
a. Item 19A/20-180gr. Hard cast LFN = 1375 fps
b. Item 19B/20-170gr JHC = 1411 fps
c. Item 19C/20-158gr. Gold Dot = 1485 fps
d. Item 19D/20-125gr. Gold Dot = 1603 fps
Let's see your .40 do that.
Speaking of lever guns:
18.5 inch Marlin 1894
a. Item 19A/20-180gr. Hard Cast = 1851 fps
b. Item 19B/20-170gr. JHC = 1860 fps
c. Item 19C/20-158gr. Gold Dot = 2153 fps---- Can you believe this?!!!
d. Item 19D/20-125gr. Gold Dot = 2298 fps---- Or this?!!!
jc, I can push 40 S&W 135's over 1500fps in a 4.25" barrel and do it quite safely, so it isn't like the BB 125 loads are leaps and bounds past the 40 loads. 10mm does not have a large advantage over 40 with light bullets either. The 135/1500 load is available from custom ammunition makers.
Even going to specialty ammunition makers there isn't much difference under 165 grains, not enough to really worry about.
Bring in handloading and the extra length of the 40 wheelgun cylinder and the 40 should be able to run with or surpass 357 magnum pretty handily, and probably do it right up to 200 grain bullets.
Even going to specialty ammunition makers there isn't much difference under 165 grains, not enough to really worry about.
Bring in handloading and the extra length of the 40 wheelgun cylinder and the 40 should be able to run with or surpass 357 magnum pretty handily, and probably do it right up to 200 grain bullets.
Interesting set of choices....
I like both rounds. I have a H&K USP40 and several .357 Magnum revolvers.
On a shot for shot basis, the .357 Magnum has the horsepower. I'm not sure it has enough more per shot to pursuade me to forsake the .40S&W on that basis alone.
My main complaint about the .40S&W is that the autopistols chambered for it are all too wide for my hands, comfortably. A 'K', 'L' or 'N' frame revolver fits and fastens to my hand like a well worn glove.
So, yeah, we can put the .40S&W in a revolver. But that somehow seems like an unnatural act to me. Just my way of looking at it.
The real choice is that of twice as many rounds in a .40S&W magazine as are in a .357 Mag revolver. I don't see that as a major consideration, but lots and lots of folks do.
Of the two, I'd rather carry a good (meaning, 'my choice') .357 Magnum revolver. Something like a M19, M586 or M27 S&W (old style). But I wouldn't feel abused with my USP40, either.
I like both rounds. I have a H&K USP40 and several .357 Magnum revolvers.
On a shot for shot basis, the .357 Magnum has the horsepower. I'm not sure it has enough more per shot to pursuade me to forsake the .40S&W on that basis alone.
My main complaint about the .40S&W is that the autopistols chambered for it are all too wide for my hands, comfortably. A 'K', 'L' or 'N' frame revolver fits and fastens to my hand like a well worn glove.
So, yeah, we can put the .40S&W in a revolver. But that somehow seems like an unnatural act to me. Just my way of looking at it.
The real choice is that of twice as many rounds in a .40S&W magazine as are in a .357 Mag revolver. I don't see that as a major consideration, but lots and lots of folks do.
Of the two, I'd rather carry a good (meaning, 'my choice') .357 Magnum revolver. Something like a M19, M586 or M27 S&W (old style). But I wouldn't feel abused with my USP40, either.
From a wheelgun?
The .357 is a broad-spectrum, versatile cartridge that, with the ability to shoot .38's, allows for nearly any use from plinking on the cheap to big game hunting. The .40 is definitely more of a one-trick pony. For a "game gun" on the other hand, the .40 wheelguns offer moon clips, larger charge holes, and a shorter cartridge OAL, all of which contribute to faster reloads.
From a personal defense standpoint, there's little to choose from between good .40 loads and good .357 Mag loads. If you're of the "light and fast" school, there ain't a dime's worth of difference between the 135gr .40 and the 125gr .357 Mag. One's slightly lighter and faster, one's slightly bigger and heavier, but end results seem pretty similar.
I'd carry my 4" 646 or my 4" 19 pretty much interchangeably...
The .357 is a broad-spectrum, versatile cartridge that, with the ability to shoot .38's, allows for nearly any use from plinking on the cheap to big game hunting. The .40 is definitely more of a one-trick pony. For a "game gun" on the other hand, the .40 wheelguns offer moon clips, larger charge holes, and a shorter cartridge OAL, all of which contribute to faster reloads.
From a personal defense standpoint, there's little to choose from between good .40 loads and good .357 Mag loads. If you're of the "light and fast" school, there ain't a dime's worth of difference between the 135gr .40 and the 125gr .357 Mag. One's slightly lighter and faster, one's slightly bigger and heavier, but end results seem pretty similar.
I'd carry my 4" 646 or my 4" 19 pretty much interchangeably...
.357 vs. .40 auto
.357 can use heavier bullets and is probably better for hunting but in general, the .40 is a better defensive cartridge and can be very accurate in a good auto. Less blast (noise) and flash with the .40 make it much more controllable in rapid fire defensive shooting. The .40 with 180 grain bullets is a "thumper" much like a .45 in recoil characteristics and sound/flash. The 155 grain .40 is much closer to 9mm recoil characteristics and noise but with much higher flash/blast than 9mm but still considerably less than .357 mag. The 165gr full power load splits the difference from what I understand. I have not fired that one. Really this is a choice between auto and revolver. In a revolver I would say go with .357 because you can use cheap .38s. If you prefer an auto you will not miss the blast/flash of the high velocity 125 grain .357s or the kick of the high velocity 158s. The only time I would say get a .40 revolver if it was also a 10mm. Then you are talking about .40S&W to 41 mag performance levels for versatility
rc
.357 can use heavier bullets and is probably better for hunting but in general, the .40 is a better defensive cartridge and can be very accurate in a good auto. Less blast (noise) and flash with the .40 make it much more controllable in rapid fire defensive shooting. The .40 with 180 grain bullets is a "thumper" much like a .45 in recoil characteristics and sound/flash. The 155 grain .40 is much closer to 9mm recoil characteristics and noise but with much higher flash/blast than 9mm but still considerably less than .357 mag. The 165gr full power load splits the difference from what I understand. I have not fired that one. Really this is a choice between auto and revolver. In a revolver I would say go with .357 because you can use cheap .38s. If you prefer an auto you will not miss the blast/flash of the high velocity 125 grain .357s or the kick of the high velocity 158s. The only time I would say get a .40 revolver if it was also a 10mm. Then you are talking about .40S&W to 41 mag performance levels for versatility
rcI have a .357 revolver (SW 65) and a .40 auto (BHP), used to have a Ruger KP94 as well. I must say that the .357 is what I learned to shoot with, the .40, I picked up to try out auto's. Never liked the 1911's :barf: .
This isn't the best comparison, as I am speaking of auto .40 vs. .357 revolver, but if I had to sell one, the .40 would go. I find that I shoot the .40 best using 165gr Gold Dot ammo, and the .357 best with 155gr Silvertips.
Plus, a revolver is faster to load than an auto. Auto owners tend to forget to factor in the time it takes to load up one of their mags
As for the .40 in a revolver? I can't say, I like the idea of moon clips and a shorter cartrdige. I have a friend with a .45 ACP revolver and he loves it. More so than his .45 1911's.
Wheelgun
This isn't the best comparison, as I am speaking of auto .40 vs. .357 revolver, but if I had to sell one, the .40 would go. I find that I shoot the .40 best using 165gr Gold Dot ammo, and the .357 best with 155gr Silvertips.
Plus, a revolver is faster to load than an auto. Auto owners tend to forget to factor in the time it takes to load up one of their mags
As for the .40 in a revolver? I can't say, I like the idea of moon clips and a shorter cartrdige. I have a friend with a .45 ACP revolver and he loves it. More so than his .45 1911's.
Wheelgun
IMO, both are excellent rounds. The .357mag is THE round for personal protection, especially with the 125gr bullet. At this time, I'm down to two .357 revolvers and two .40 Smith auto's, plus many other handguns in different calibers. I'm more of a revolver shooter anyway, so that's where my preference lies. But, when I was issued a pistol for duty use, it was a Smith .40. Now that I can carry anything I want on duty, it's a 3' .357 M65 or .44mag 4" 629.
The 125gr .357 mag is the most effective round for personal protection according to SOME statistics. Personally, I agree with them, but some don't. The .40 S&W was created as a compromise round. More effective than the 9mm with less recoil than the .45 acp. If you stick with the 165gr or lighter bullet weight in the .40, it's an excellent and effective round. The 180gr loads move too slowly to reliably expand. Leave the 180gr bullets to the 10mm auto where they belong. After I joined the PD, the first thing I did was swap the dept over from 180gr Winchester SXT's to the same bullet design in 165gr weight. Their 180gr SXT's published velocities are 10 fps less than their subsonic loads.
Basically, I can't answer your question of which one is "better". I'm fond of both rounds, and the effectiveness of some statistics are very close. So, I would have to say that it comes down to your preference of handgun styles, revolver or semi-auto.
One other consideration is what you plan to do with the handgun. I've only addressed personal protection. If you plan on doing any handgun hunting, definately go with the .357mag. Even a CCW revolver with a 4" barrel would be fine as long as you can place the round where you need to. That all depends on how much you plan to practice. Even if you plan to do some serious target shooting, go with the revolver. I'm not saying autoloaders are inaccurate, but a majority of them are not as accurate out of the box as a revolver.
I hope this rambling helps.
The 125gr .357 mag is the most effective round for personal protection according to SOME statistics. Personally, I agree with them, but some don't. The .40 S&W was created as a compromise round. More effective than the 9mm with less recoil than the .45 acp. If you stick with the 165gr or lighter bullet weight in the .40, it's an excellent and effective round. The 180gr loads move too slowly to reliably expand. Leave the 180gr bullets to the 10mm auto where they belong. After I joined the PD, the first thing I did was swap the dept over from 180gr Winchester SXT's to the same bullet design in 165gr weight. Their 180gr SXT's published velocities are 10 fps less than their subsonic loads.
Basically, I can't answer your question of which one is "better". I'm fond of both rounds, and the effectiveness of some statistics are very close. So, I would have to say that it comes down to your preference of handgun styles, revolver or semi-auto.
One other consideration is what you plan to do with the handgun. I've only addressed personal protection. If you plan on doing any handgun hunting, definately go with the .357mag. Even a CCW revolver with a 4" barrel would be fine as long as you can place the round where you need to. That all depends on how much you plan to practice. Even if you plan to do some serious target shooting, go with the revolver. I'm not saying autoloaders are inaccurate, but a majority of them are not as accurate out of the box as a revolver.
I hope this rambling helps.
I've never argured the point that the .40 is a larger diameter than the 9mm or .357mag. It's kind of obvious.
As for the .40 being an "optimized" round, that's up to your own interpretation. Yes, it is nice to have a double stack mag in a grip that most hands can fit around, unlike the .45 acp, and it's great to have more energy than the 9mm. I previously owned a Springfield V10.45 before with a double stack magazine. Even with my big hands, it was uncomfortable. Yes, with the correctly matched bullet (165gr or lighter as I mentioned before), you get excellent velocity, penetration and energy transfer. But, you can't argue that it's a better stopper than the .45 acp.
I didn't mean to offend anyone who is a .40 fan by calling it a "compromise" round. As I said before, I carry one sometimes myself. I'm just explaining why the round was developed. More energy than the 9mm and more compact than the .45 acp. In other words, a "compromise". You are giving up a little stopping power and diameter (I won't argue that one, either) for a handgun more compact, larger capacity and smaller diameter grip.
I'm sorry if I offended the engineering type by calling the .40 names, but it was not meant in a bad way towards the .40 S&W. It's an excellent round for personal protection. It's more effective than the 9mm's I sometimes carry myself. I was just trying to explain why the round was developed: as a "compromise".
As for the .40 being an "optimized" round, that's up to your own interpretation. Yes, it is nice to have a double stack mag in a grip that most hands can fit around, unlike the .45 acp, and it's great to have more energy than the 9mm. I previously owned a Springfield V10.45 before with a double stack magazine. Even with my big hands, it was uncomfortable. Yes, with the correctly matched bullet (165gr or lighter as I mentioned before), you get excellent velocity, penetration and energy transfer. But, you can't argue that it's a better stopper than the .45 acp.
I didn't mean to offend anyone who is a .40 fan by calling it a "compromise" round. As I said before, I carry one sometimes myself. I'm just explaining why the round was developed. More energy than the 9mm and more compact than the .45 acp. In other words, a "compromise". You are giving up a little stopping power and diameter (I won't argue that one, either) for a handgun more compact, larger capacity and smaller diameter grip.
I'm sorry if I offended the engineering type by calling the .40 names, but it was not meant in a bad way towards the .40 S&W. It's an excellent round for personal protection. It's more effective than the 9mm's I sometimes carry myself. I was just trying to explain why the round was developed: as a "compromise".
juliet charley
New member
Actually, if it were truly an optimized round, it would have been just a shade longer--somewhere in between a 9x19 and .45 ACP instead of slavishly adhering to OAL of a 9x19. One they have tried to do is force and intermediate round and without changing the length of the cartridge. The result has unfortunately been a less stable round that is most prone to catastrophic failure of any current commercial offering.
As for the larger diameter, it's there, but remember we're talking about four one hundreths of inch. In other words, the difference is there, but you have to measure it with a caliper (which just about puts it in the "whoopee-doo" category).
If you like screwing with moon clips--I do not--the .40 S&W might make some sense in a revolver (but not near as much as the 10mm since they require the same size frame), but otherwise, the .41 Magnum makes a whole lot better choice.
As for the larger diameter, it's there, but remember we're talking about four one hundreths of inch. In other words, the difference is there, but you have to measure it with a caliper (which just about puts it in the "whoopee-doo" category).
If you like screwing with moon clips--I do not--the .40 S&W might make some sense in a revolver (but not near as much as the 10mm since they require the same size frame), but otherwise, the .41 Magnum makes a whole lot better choice.
Hawgleg44 –
Absolutely no offense taken; your “compromise” post is a perfectly fine analysis (polite and articulate, too).
I am not a big proponent of the .40 S&W, from either my Glock 23C or my Sig P226. However, I really like the .40 in my Smith 610 revolver. My comments re “optimized” only reflect my belief that the .40 S&W, from many autoloaders initially designed for the 9x19, really seems to provide a DEFENSIVE ROUND that has significantly improved performance in several major categories (again, ONLY in comparison to the 9x19).
julietcharlie –
The Smith 610 REVOLVER is precisely where I have found the .40 S&W to be a great round; specifically, my Smith 610-3 allows me to shoot cheap – but effective – .40 S&Ws and also to employ the more powerful 10mm FROM THE SAME HANDGUN.
Absolutely no offense taken; your “compromise” post is a perfectly fine analysis (polite and articulate, too).
I am not a big proponent of the .40 S&W, from either my Glock 23C or my Sig P226. However, I really like the .40 in my Smith 610 revolver. My comments re “optimized” only reflect my belief that the .40 S&W, from many autoloaders initially designed for the 9x19, really seems to provide a DEFENSIVE ROUND that has significantly improved performance in several major categories (again, ONLY in comparison to the 9x19).
julietcharlie –
The Smith 610 REVOLVER is precisely where I have found the .40 S&W to be a great round; specifically, my Smith 610-3 allows me to shoot cheap – but effective – .40 S&Ws and also to employ the more powerful 10mm FROM THE SAME HANDGUN.
juliet charley
New member
It's sort of like using .38 Specials in a .357 Magnum or .44 Specials (or Russians) in a .44 Magnum (except .44 Special is not cheap). At the price of 10mm (and the pain in the neck it is to get), I can see where the .40 S&W might make sense in the 610. FWIW, Georgia Arms sells their practice and their premium (Shear Power Plus) .40 S&W and 10mm for the same price so if you like Georgia Arms, there's not a lot of cost savings involved. I still hate screwing with moon clips--and having to scrape the crud out of the cylinders when you use a round with too short of case runs a close second (which is why I never shoot .38 Specials in my .357).
juliet charley . . .
. . . maybe even better than .38 Specials from a .357 magnum, because the .40 S&W: (a) is a more potent round than the .38 Special and (b) they are "dirt cheap" (e. g., just bought 500 rounds of 180 grain .40 S&W Winchester USA (white box) from Midway for $72). That’s hard to beat for target and plinking. By the way, I agree with you re Georgia Arms: great prices, excellent quality, good friendly people, and fine customer service.
. . . maybe even better than .38 Specials from a .357 magnum, because the .40 S&W: (a) is a more potent round than the .38 Special and (b) they are "dirt cheap" (e. g., just bought 500 rounds of 180 grain .40 S&W Winchester USA (white box) from Midway for $72). That’s hard to beat for target and plinking. By the way, I agree with you re Georgia Arms: great prices, excellent quality, good friendly people, and fine customer service.
I like 357
I must just be odd, but I can't really get into the whole auto ammo in a revolver concept, for some reason. Neither 9's, 40's, or even 45's. Would rather go with a full length rev. round in each case. How much does a 40 lose from the barrel gap? I want to reload ammo and I can't imagine the auto rounds are nearly as versatile for handloading. And I have a 357 lever gun to match my stainless revolver. Guess I am traditional, but to each his own, I suppose that the 40 cal revs have a few things they do really well.
And you can get a neat spacey looking Beretta carbine to match it for long range work!
I must just be odd, but I can't really get into the whole auto ammo in a revolver concept, for some reason. Neither 9's, 40's, or even 45's. Would rather go with a full length rev. round in each case. How much does a 40 lose from the barrel gap? I want to reload ammo and I can't imagine the auto rounds are nearly as versatile for handloading. And I have a 357 lever gun to match my stainless revolver. Guess I am traditional, but to each his own, I suppose that the 40 cal revs have a few things they do really well.
And you can get a neat spacey looking Beretta carbine to match it for long range work!
Tom2, to answer your question . . .
Some, but it gains even more from the extra barrel length. Approximately the first inch of every autoloader’s barrel is occupied by the cartridge, whereas the bullet enters any revolver’s forcing cone/barrel, with the cartridge case remaining in the cylinder. That extra barrel length provides additional muzzle velocity and muzzle energy.
Some, but it gains even more from the extra barrel length. Approximately the first inch of every autoloader’s barrel is occupied by the cartridge, whereas the bullet enters any revolver’s forcing cone/barrel, with the cartridge case remaining in the cylinder. That extra barrel length provides additional muzzle velocity and muzzle energy.