oneounceload
Moderator
I would think to be fair, you would need to compare guns of equal size and barrel length - that being said, then, IMO, the 357 would be the better option.
.357 Snub vs .40S&W auto
- Thread starter ninjatoth
- Start date
armsmaster270
New member
Get a .40 and have a .357Sig barrel as a spare
Since we are talking about carrying, I would have to base it some what on the persons experience level. Both calibers will stop an attacker (we hope). With a 40, you have more rounds in the firearm but if for some reason a round doesnt fire, you need to keep your witts and remeber to manually cycle the firearm to load another round. With a revolver you can simply just pull the trigger again. Personally I carry my CBOB in 45 or one of my Sigs. Before retiring from LEO I carried my 357 snubbie on my ankle as a backup while on duty.
They are equal to me in power.Thermodyne
New member
The on that fits you the best personally. Go out and try some pistols in the size range you want. The one that feels the best in your hand is usually the one to pick.
I would get the snubby revolver. The revolver is uber-reliable. Even a modicom of practice will greatly increase accuracy proficency in regards to the "its hard to shoot a snubby"-argument. Semi-autos can be prone to problems like bad mags, double feeds and "smoke stacks". The revolver is not prone to problems like these. And reliability tops my list in what to look for in SD weapon.
FWIW, I carry both.
Apples and oranges question to me.
Caliber point, the 357 has the best one stop shot record, but that is based on service revolvers not j-framed alloys snubbies. 40 S&W is not far behind, but there are no magic bullets.
Size issue, no doubt that an alloy 357 snub in the pocket 24/7, beats the some times carried higher capacity longer barreled semi-auto/pistol.
Other considerations, ability to reload, shooting accuracy at different ranges, recoil, capacity vs. reload realities.
I always pocket carry an S&W 340 M&P or SS with a XS replaced front sight, however, I consider it primarily a sub ten yard gun for SD purposes, mostly as a BUG. Can be shot concealed from pocket if necessary. Any snub nose takes more practice to shoot and reload effectively, a 357 in alloy is a hand spanker.
Because in the higher crime areas I must work in, where criminals routinely apply their trade in pairs or groups with semi-autos (most but not all poor shots), my primary is a higher capacity poly semi-auto in 40, where weight, capacity, faster reload potential, better sights, and a full sized grip make it a better fighting weapon.
Taking SD courses that allows you to explore the strengths as weakness of each is the best way to answer the mechanics and SD practicality; each have their niche.
The recoil of the 357 and 40 are real issues that find many switching to 38 and 9mm.
Each to his own.
Apples and oranges question to me.
Caliber point, the 357 has the best one stop shot record, but that is based on service revolvers not j-framed alloys snubbies. 40 S&W is not far behind, but there are no magic bullets.
Size issue, no doubt that an alloy 357 snub in the pocket 24/7, beats the some times carried higher capacity longer barreled semi-auto/pistol.
Other considerations, ability to reload, shooting accuracy at different ranges, recoil, capacity vs. reload realities.
I always pocket carry an S&W 340 M&P or SS with a XS replaced front sight, however, I consider it primarily a sub ten yard gun for SD purposes, mostly as a BUG. Can be shot concealed from pocket if necessary. Any snub nose takes more practice to shoot and reload effectively, a 357 in alloy is a hand spanker.
Because in the higher crime areas I must work in, where criminals routinely apply their trade in pairs or groups with semi-autos (most but not all poor shots), my primary is a higher capacity poly semi-auto in 40, where weight, capacity, faster reload potential, better sights, and a full sized grip make it a better fighting weapon.
Taking SD courses that allows you to explore the strengths as weakness of each is the best way to answer the mechanics and SD practicality; each have their niche.
The recoil of the 357 and 40 are real issues that find many switching to 38 and 9mm.
Each to his own.
Last edited:
A good revolver and good auto are about equal, if they are equally maintained. Neglect either, and you'll know it.
The autos tend to be a lot more forgiving and easier to get back into action if they do have a stoppage. Usually, its nothing more than a quick TRB to get them going again. Many times, the revolver is done when it stops. I've had them lock up so you couldnt get them open, and I've had cylinders fall off the gun altogether during a reload.
I would put that into the reverse, a great deal of practice will give a modicum of increased proficiency.
I shoot a couple of different snubbies on a fairly regular basis. Mostly they are 642's with .38 +P level reloads or ammo. I'm lucky if I get through a box of 50 of the .38's anymore. My hand is hurting pretty good by the end of the box, and still hurts most of the next day or so too. I quit even bothering with my 60 in 357MAG. Its not even funny watching other people try to shoot it anymore.
My P239 in 357SIG on the other hand, which is 357MAG level power, can be shot all day with no discomfort. On top of that, my groups at 7 yards or so with the 642, are usually larger than my groups at 15 yards with my P239.
Other than weight, the two guns really are not all that different size wise either.
They are both fine cartridges with a lot going for them. Both are excellent self defense rounds. They are ballistically identical and is is hard to find a bad hollow point in either. I carry both.
The 357 was actually invented in 1935 and it was designed for hunting alright, people. The "G" men needed something that would penetrate the heavy steel doors on the gangsters vehicles and the handgun cartridges of the day were lacking.
The revolver is not slow to load if you use quality speedloaders, carried correctly and learn to use them so that it is intuitive.
I shoot IDPA and I use my duty gun for one match H&K P2K 40 S&W, and my 3" model 13 for the second match occasionally. I can shoot my 357 faster and more accurately that anything but a 1911. I reload fast and usually shoot a better overall score (Time VS Hits) with the revolver. But then again, I learned on a revolver. Anecdotal yes, but you were asking opinions.
The best thing to do is try both and see what you like the best and what you shoot the best. A quality auto will cost you twice what a similar quality revolver will cost. What is you intended use for the gun? A nightstand gun, CCW, competition, or hunting? That may help you narrow the choices.
The 357 was actually invented in 1935 and it was designed for hunting alright, people. The "G" men needed something that would penetrate the heavy steel doors on the gangsters vehicles and the handgun cartridges of the day were lacking.
The revolver is not slow to load if you use quality speedloaders, carried correctly and learn to use them so that it is intuitive.
I shoot IDPA and I use my duty gun for one match H&K P2K 40 S&W, and my 3" model 13 for the second match occasionally. I can shoot my 357 faster and more accurately that anything but a 1911. I reload fast and usually shoot a better overall score (Time VS Hits) with the revolver. But then again, I learned on a revolver. Anecdotal yes, but you were asking opinions.
The best thing to do is try both and see what you like the best and what you shoot the best. A quality auto will cost you twice what a similar quality revolver will cost. What is you intended use for the gun? A nightstand gun, CCW, competition, or hunting? That may help you narrow the choices.
I've carried both, at times.
I carried a S&W M19 2.5" for a couple years long ago. I felt very safe with it and never had any doubts about power level, reliability or accuracy.
I currently have a H&K P2000 in .40 S&W (issue gun) and like it. I don't have any concerns about power, reliability or accuracy.
The 'high round count' and reloading speed really don't mean much. The odds of being attacked by a regiment of goblins is pretty remote, and I can hit what I intend to hit.
All in all, I prefer the revolver. They just suit me better, and they are much faster in use. However, I must admit I would prefer a four inch gun cut back to just in front of the extractor rod latch over the standard 2.5 inch gun.
I carried a S&W M19 2.5" for a couple years long ago. I felt very safe with it and never had any doubts about power level, reliability or accuracy.
I currently have a H&K P2000 in .40 S&W (issue gun) and like it. I don't have any concerns about power, reliability or accuracy.
The 'high round count' and reloading speed really don't mean much. The odds of being attacked by a regiment of goblins is pretty remote, and I can hit what I intend to hit.
All in all, I prefer the revolver. They just suit me better, and they are much faster in use. However, I must admit I would prefer a four inch gun cut back to just in front of the extractor rod latch over the standard 2.5 inch gun.
armsmaster270
New member
I carried my Model19 2 1/2" in a Shoulder holster under my uniform shirt.
357 snub or 40? Give me a 40
Chrono results, average of 5 shots:
Ruger Speed Six + Fed. 125 JHP 357 Magnum = 1,248 fps = 432# KE
Glock 27 + Speer Gold Dot 155 = 1,134 fps = 442# KE
Using typical defensive loads from comparable sized weaponds the 357 is not more powerful.
I prefer the 40 becasue it offers equalivent power, larger bore, increased capacity and is easier to carry & conceal.
Chrono results, average of 5 shots:
Ruger Speed Six + Fed. 125 JHP 357 Magnum = 1,248 fps = 432# KE
Glock 27 + Speer Gold Dot 155 = 1,134 fps = 442# KE
Using typical defensive loads from comparable sized weaponds the 357 is not more powerful.
I prefer the 40 becasue it offers equalivent power, larger bore, increased capacity and is easier to carry & conceal.
Mark Milton
Moderator
>>>>I believe that the 357 magnum is a far better round than the 40. This is just my opinion and I am sure there will be more than one that disagrees for whatever reason. >>>
Thing is, you are right and they are wrong.
The .40 is certainly trendy. But ask people who have seen shootings with it how good it performs and you will be surprised.
Said it before, I will say it again. Its heavily issued in the county I live in and we have had multiple LEO shootings with NO one stop shots. The most typical stories I can share with you is a fleeing felon shot about 7 times and when his gun ran empty he began FIST FIGHTING with the officers and it took several to subdue him.
A few weeks later some rocket scientist shot himself in the leg at Wally World with his .40 and drove himself to the hospital and walked into the emegergency room.
That's not what you call "stopping power" by any ways, shape or means.
The .357 is obviously a better manstopper. It has a solid track record with proper loadings.
The 2 inch barrel is solidly affixed to a solid frame, often steel- and will have greater mechanical accuracy than a gun in .40 caliber that has a barrel that is a moving part and a flexing polymer frame.
Those are just facts of life.
On the other hand a steel frame gun is heavier than tactical tupperware.
More rounds only matters if you are a crap marksman and plan on missing a lot, or are one of those fools brainwashed by Hollywood into thinking that spray and pray will save the day.
Thing is, you are right and they are wrong.
The .40 is certainly trendy. But ask people who have seen shootings with it how good it performs and you will be surprised.
Said it before, I will say it again. Its heavily issued in the county I live in and we have had multiple LEO shootings with NO one stop shots. The most typical stories I can share with you is a fleeing felon shot about 7 times and when his gun ran empty he began FIST FIGHTING with the officers and it took several to subdue him.
A few weeks later some rocket scientist shot himself in the leg at Wally World with his .40 and drove himself to the hospital and walked into the emegergency room.
That's not what you call "stopping power" by any ways, shape or means.
The .357 is obviously a better manstopper. It has a solid track record with proper loadings.
The 2 inch barrel is solidly affixed to a solid frame, often steel- and will have greater mechanical accuracy than a gun in .40 caliber that has a barrel that is a moving part and a flexing polymer frame.
Those are just facts of life.
On the other hand a steel frame gun is heavier than tactical tupperware.
More rounds only matters if you are a crap marksman and plan on missing a lot, or are one of those fools brainwashed by Hollywood into thinking that spray and pray will save the day.
I didnt know that the number of rounds in your gun was an indication of what kind of marksman you are. When did that come about and what are you basing it on?
Accuracy wise, I have autos that are similar in size to my J frame snubbies, that are much easier to shoot well with, both shooting at bullseye type targets on a static range, and on combat type targets on a range where you can move.