357 mag. vs 9mm

[KyJim]

Extrapolations of data are meaningless. You are taking best guesses.

Extrapolation, to a certain extent, is a valid method of estimating something. I think it is valid here because what we are extrapolating (between two known barrel lengths) is actually pretty small. It is also the best we can do using guns/barrels that are as nearly identical as possible. And, if you want actual measurements, go back and look at post 8.

Using weak watered down 357 loads is in fact cherry picking. It doesn't matter to me if the 9mm loads are from the same manufacturer or not.

I've never heard of Corbon being accused of "weak watered down" loads. You cannot seem to comprehend that I'm talking about common, commercially available loads. If you don't want to compare comparable bullet weights from the same manufacturer, how about I take some 9mm +P+ from Buffalo Bore and you can take some .357 magnum from Sellier & Bellot? That's cherry picking.

If you really think the 9 mm is in par with the 357 mag out of the same length barrel, more power to you. You certainly aren't going to convince many others of your belief.

I only said they came close out of short barrels in common commercially available loads. You obviously do not understand how different calibers are loaded by manufacturers. 9mm uses quick burning powder to get up to speed faster than .357 magnum with slower burning powder. Why don't you give me some proof that what I'm saying is wrong? All I hear from you denying facts and data along with a perfectly valid rationale to explain the facts. Do you have any facts at all?

 

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by KyJim
Quote:
But, if you are claiming essentially similar bullet weights, at similar velocities, how can the recoil be anything but essentially the same?

You are forgetting the mass of gasses, unburnt powder, and anything else leaving the barrel. Those have to be figured into recoil.

And just how much mass do you think that adds? A brief look at Hogdon's reloading data for 125 gr .357 Magnum loadings shows us that the very heaviest charges (Winchester 296 and H110) are about 22 gr of powder.

http://www.hodgdonreloading.com/data/pistol

Even if we assume that only half of that powder is being burned when cartridge is fired from a snub barrel (and it's a good deal more than 50% or it'd be a squib), that's still only adding 11 gr to the weight of what's coming out the barrel.

Quote:
Because the maximum OAL for a .357 Magnum's case is 1.59", BBTI's 2" barrel numbers for the cartridge are, due to the way the T/C Encore barrels were measured, the functional equivalent of a revolver with a 0.41" barrel. I am aware of no production .357 Magnum revolver with a barrel less than half an inch long, so BBTI's 2" barrel .357 Magnum numbers are pretty meaningless as anything but a curiosity.

A valid point. However, you then have to use the overall length of a 9mm cartridge which is .754 inches which means that you add another 3/4 inches to the "barrel length" when shooting from the equivalent in .357.

Yes, if you're trying to compare velocities between one cartridge fired from a revolver and one fired from a semi-automatic. This discrepancy is exactly why BBTI chose to use T/C Encore barrels measured the same way regardless of caliber.

Let's use a 3.5" TC barrel length to correspond to a snubby. BBI doesn't have that length but we can extrapolate. The 125 gr. .357 magnum from Corbon is 1496 fps from four inches and 1257 fps from three inches. So, the extrapolated value is 1376 fps.

Let's take a look at the 9mm +P 125 gr. from Corbon. Here, though, we add 3/4 inch and look at it as if fired from a barrel length of 4.25 inches. The extrapolated value is 1282 fps. Thus, there is about a 100 fps advantage to the .357.

Here is where you lose me because 1. your extrapolation for the 9mm is off, and 2. there is no need to extrapolate BBTI's T/C Encore results because they're already measured the same way. First off, BBTI got 1282 fps from the 125 gr +P Corbon 9mm from their 5" T/C Encore barrel, not a shorter one. If you're going to extrapolate that loading's velocity from a 4.25" barrel, it should be roughly 1240 fps (the difference between the 4" barrel and 5" barrel result is 56 fps and 25% of 56 is 14, so you simply add 14 fps to the 1226 fps of the 4" barrel result).

Secondly, I fail to see why you're attempting to extrapolate BBTI's T/C Encore results to begin with because both the 9mm and .357 Magnum results (as well as all the other calibers that BBTI tested) were from barrels measured the same way a semi-auto barrel is measured. By doing this, BBTI basically took the what you're trying to extrapolate away out of the equation to begin with.

Finally, if you really want to extrapolate BBTI's T/C Encore results, you're doing it in the wrong direction. Because of the difference in the cartridge OAL and BBTI's measuring method, the 9mm is actually getting .536" more usable barrel than the .357 Magnum (9mm case length is .754" vs. 1.29" for the .357 Magnum) for a given length. Therefore, if we took your extrapolation of 1376 fps for the 3.5" barrel in .357 Magnum and compensated for the difference in case length, we should actually compare it to the 3" barrel result for the 9mm which was 1170 fps, over 200 fps slower.

How significant is a 100 fps advantage using modern ammo? I don't think this will be a significant advantage. And I previously mentioned flash and recoil.

And as I previously mentioned in post #6, velocity and energy numbers are only one part of the puzzle. A .357 Magnum is not simply a 9mm bullet loaded to higher velocity in a different case. Many common .357 Magnum hollowpoint loadings use bullets of shape, weight, and construction that simply are not available in anything commercially loaded in 9mm. Aside from a similar (though not identical) bullet diameter, .357 Magnum and 9mm Luger actually have almost nothing in common with each other and, as such, you really cannot expect the two of them to perform similarly even if you do handicap one or the other to make the velocity and energy similar.

 

[KyJim]

Who has a T/C in .357 Mag with a 2" barrel and how does it relate to a revolver with a 2" barrel? We may as well be arguing about weather the Millenium Falcon could shoot down the Starship Enterprise.

This is one of the tests done by Ballistics by the Inch. It is valid test method when trying to eliminate the difference in guns; e.g., different cylinder gaps. It's not perfect but it's the best way to compare apples to apples. We're trying to insure we are testing the cartridge and not the gun.

 

[KyJim]

there is no need to extrapolate BBTI's T/C Encore results because they're already measured the same way.

That's what I did to begin with but then you complained:

Because the maximum OAL for a .357 Magnum's case is 1.59", BBTI's 2" barrel numbers for the cartridge are, due to the way the T/C Encore barrels were measured, the functional equivalent of a revolver with a 0.41" barrel.

If you're going to take cartridge length into consideration for the .357, you have to do the same for a 9mm when fired from a revolver. Since the cartridge is shorter, the effective barrel length is longer from a revolver.

I'll go back over the math tomorrow, getting late and have to work in the morning.

 

[Webleymkv]

Also, as to whether or not 100 fps will give us any meaningful difference, why not look at some real world testing?

tnoutdoors9 tested the 9mm +P 124 gr Speer Gold Dot from a Glock 19 here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdXfDcY-0gU

1204 fps average velocity, 13.25" penetration, .614" average expanded diameter, and 123.9 gr retained weight.

He also tested the .357 Sig 125 gr Speer Gold Dot from a Glock 32 here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5FOFnJVS0E&list=PL858978D90283EA35

1336 fps average velocity, 14.5" penetration, .572" average expanded diameter, and 124.5 gr retained weight.

So, 132 fps higher velocity got us slightly less expansion (.042" difference) but 1.25" more penetration.

Likewise, he also tested the .357 Sig 125 gr Remington Golden Saber Bonded:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kLkpIljrNA&list=PL858978D90283EA35&index=7

1321 fps average velocity, 16" penetration, .579" average expanded diameter, 124.8 gr retained weight.

And the 9mm +P 124 gr Remington Golden Saber Bonded:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9TokjDG4iw&index=2&list=PL727CAFF8A6C0D3BF

1170 fps, 13.63" penetration, .582" average expanded diameter, 123 gr retained weight.

151 fps more velocity gave us nearly identical expansion, but nearly 2.37" more penetration.

Finally, 9mm +P 124 gr Federal HST was tested:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COVoBwR1oww&list=PL727CAFF8A6C0D3BF&index=10

1178 fps, 14.75" penetration, .591" expanded diameter, 122.8 gr retained weight

and, .357 Sig 125 gr Federal HST:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kLkpIljrNA&index=7&list=PL858978D90283EA35

1375 fps velocity, 13.25" penetration, .592" expanded diameter, 120.6 gr retained weight.

So here we have 197 fps difference giving nearly identical expansion but 1.5" less penetration.

 

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by KyJim
Quote:
there is no need to extrapolate BBTI's T/C Encore results because they're already measured the same way.

That's what I did to begin with but then you complained:

Quote:
Because the maximum OAL for a .357 Magnum's case is 1.59", BBTI's 2" barrel numbers for the cartridge are, due to the way the T/C Encore barrels were measured, the functional equivalent of a revolver with a 0.41" barrel.

If you're going to take cartridge length into consideration for the .357, you have to do the same for a 9mm when fired from a revolver. Since the cartridge is shorter, the effective barrel length is longer from a revolver.

I'll go back over the math tomorrow, getting late and have to work in the morning.

I complained because you chose to quote the numbers from BBTI's ridiculously short 2" T/C Encore Barrels. No commonly available gun in either 9mm or .357 Magnum has a barrel that short so, as I said in post #32, those numbers have no applicability to a real-world gun. When you get into a barrel that short, the difference in case length means that the 9mm is given a length of useful barrel roughly 75% longer.

 

[Guv]

How would a 357 Maximum fair in the same 2" T/C?????? This would show how silly this test really is, it has very limited relevance. I'm sure at some unreasonable barrel length the 308Win would get pretty close to a 300WM, what's the point though. I guess if we were talking about derringers, then okay, but not wheel guns.

 

[Guv]

3" bbl 223 is about 100fps faster than a 22mag, according to this BBTI test.

Are we really gaining any real knowledge from this? All this proves is if you place something in a non-typical application the results will be abnormal.

 

[44 AMP]

Let's use a 3.5" TC barrel length to correspond to a snubby.

How about actually using a snubbie to correspond to a snubbie?

OR, how about this, lets take the original .357 Magnum load (158gr @ 1550fps from an 8 3/8" barrel) and compare it with the original 9mm Luger load (124gr @ 1050fps from a 4" barrel) and see what the computer program says they will do in a 2" barrel?

then, extrapolate from there?

ought to be just as useful, I'm thinking...

 

[TimSr]

Ruger used to make a Blackhawk with a 9mm cylinder and a .357 cylinder to shoot both ammo in the same gun. Now THAT would be an apples to apples comparison!

 

[KyJim]

Really? Comparing .357 Sig to a 9mm in four inch semi-autos when we're talking about .357 Mag to a 9mm out of two or two and a half inch barreled revolver? And, you refer to the 100 fps difference but the difference in the figures you use are between 133 to 197 fps, the difference in your examples being between 33% and 97% more than what I had referred to. Even using some of your figures, there's nothing clearly superior with the .357 Sig. In some cases they expand less than 9mm while 9mm still easily exceeds the FBI 12 inch minimum expansion ideal. And, again, in real life shootings, would that make a difference? Clearly the FBI doesn't think so since there are two threads now where they are thinking of moving to 9mm.

And I have yet to hear anything about posts 8 and 35 where real 9mm results were chronoed.

I knew some would just not accept that in some circumstances 9mm would be in the same ballpark as the .357 mag. And that's okay. I don't know that there's much more to say about this so I'm probably going to go onto other things.

 

[Sheikyourbootie]

The two loads I have run over the chronograph from my 5" and 2" barrels are the 125 grain Remington SJHP, a bit over 1500 from the 5" barrel and almost 1250 from the 2" barrel with a HUGE fireball and a crap load of snap.

The other load is the Federal 140 grain Barnes hunting load, which is actually pretty mild. 1300fps from the 5" and 1100fps from the 2" and very little snap.

I may have to run the Buffalo Bore load of the 140 Barnres through my snubby to see how it compares to the 1550fps I get from the 5" barrel. In general my snubby seems to run 200 to 250fps slower than my 5" barrel, but I'll post what I get later this week when I get a bit of time to run some over the chrony

Not sure how it compares to 9mm, but I can run some ammo through my Shield when I get it back from the gunsmith (putting on an xs big dot)

 

[ljnowell]

Extrapolation, to a certain extent, is a valid method of estimating something. I think it is valid here because what we are extrapolating (between two known barrel lengths) is actually pretty small. It is also the best we can do using guns/barrels that are as nearly identical as possible. And, if you want actual measurements, go back and look at post 8.



I've never heard of Corbon being accused of "weak watered down" loads. You cannot seem to comprehend that I'm talking about common, commercially available loads. If you don't want to compare comparable bullet weights from the same manufacturer, how about I take some 9mm +P+ from Buffalo Bore and you can take some .357 magnum from Sellier & Bellot? That's cherry picking.



I only said they came close out of short barrels in common commercially available loads. You obviously do not understand how different calibers are loaded by manufacturers. 9mm uses quick burning powder to get up to speed faster than .357 magnum with slower burning powder. Why don't you give me some proof that what I'm saying is wrong? All I hear from you denying facts and data along with a perfectly valid rationale to explain the facts. Do you have any facts at all?

Insults aside, I am very much aware of how manufacturers load ammo. Unless you have also worked for an ammo manufacturer, there us a good chance I may know more than you do.

Arguing that two loads are made by the same manufacturer so that makes them comparable is a joke. That's like saying the Winchester white box JHP are comparable to the pdx line.

What you fail to understand was described very well in a post above this. The BBTI information is flawed. Your extrapolation is no more than a WAG that you calculated incorrectly.

Yes, certain 9mm loads can outperform certain 357 mag loads. No one has disputed that. Both are more than adequate. The 9mm is no 357 mag though.

 

[Webleymkv]

Really? Comparing .357 Sig to a 9mm in four inch semi-autos when we're talking about .357 Mag to a 9mm out of two or two and a half inch barreled revolver? And, you refer to the 100 fps difference but the difference in the figures you use are between 133 to 197 fps, the difference in your examples being between 33% and 97% more than what I had referred to. Even using some of your figures, there's nothing clearly superior with the .357 Sig. In some cases they expand less than 9mm while 9mm still easily exceeds the FBI 12 inch minimum expansion ideal. And, again, in real life shootings, would that make a difference? Clearly the FBI doesn't think so since there are two threads now where they are thinking of moving to 9mm.

First of all, I compared 9mm and .357 Sig because those are two cartridges which use bullets of very similar weight and construction with roughly a 100 fps velocity difference between the two. I didn't use any .357 Magnum gel testing because that cartridge often uses bullets of substantially different construction than 9mm and because most .357 Magnum gel tests are from longer barrels which produce substantially more than a 100 fps difference in velocity. Basically, I was trying to find two loadings with as little difference other than velocity between each other as possible.

Secondly, where in my post did I say that the .357 Sig's performance was clearly superior to that of the .357 Magnum? I didn't, I simply presented the results of tnoutdoors9's gel testing and will let everyone draw their own conclusions from those results. That being said, while expanded diameter was, for the most part, pretty close to each other, the penetration between the two was markedly different. Whether or not that difference in penetration would cause a substantially different effect in the real world is an issue that I'll let everyone draw their own conclusions about.

As to the difference in velocities being more than 100 fps, sorry but that's the closest I could find between two loadings using the same types and weights of .355" bullets. To be fair, however, the difference in velocity between your extrapolated 3.5" T/C barrels is 136 fps (1376 fps vs 1240 fps).

 

[Doc Holliday 1950]

357 vs 9mm

Okay, I am a novice about this. But in my experience owning a 9mm semi vs. a 357 revolver, it's always going to be the 357. The major reason has to do with
the actual arming of the semi vs the ease of shooting the 357.
Most 9mm are that poly junk and most 357's are steel. Like I said, I am a novice.
But I have very strong feelings about the 357 being a better weapon that gives my OLDER HANDS better control, thus better protection.

 

[Mike_Fontenot]

[...]
357 mag. vs 9mm
It is true that a .357 mag. is as good as a 9 mm round when it comes out from a 2 in. barrel or less?

.357 is in a completely different league, than anything less than 10mm.

 

[Nanuk]

The BBTI data is goofy to say the least. My testing shows a 125 Grain 357 Magnum Winchester @ 1250 FPS from a 1 7/8" bbl S&W and 1350 FPS from a 3" S&W.