I have both 9mm and 357 handguns. Just my uninformed opinion, but the 9mm+P+ is more than I'd want to run in my pistols. They look impressive on paper, but to me the additional wear vs any ballistic advantage just isn't worth it. If I feel the need to step up from 9mm, I just bring the 357, but I use 158gr loads, not 125gr. If you only have the 9mm and feel better loading it with the +P+ ammo, then that's what you should do. To my way of thinking, +P+ in any caliber just doesn't make a lot of sense for most applications, though.
9mm+P+ vs. .357 Magnum
- Thread starter M1Rifle30-06
- Start date
Based on what?
Except for the Beretta, me too. In guns in good condition and maintained, +P+ is a non issue.
I agree, and especially for use a a daily carry gun.
Again, based on what?
If I wanted it to be like "Y", Id carry a "Y", but "Y", more often than not, doesn't offer what I want out of "X" in most other respects, so I take advantage of the strides made in ammo development and use ammo that can increase the effectiveness of "X", which happens to bring it into the realm of "Y".
Doing the above, I can retain the smaller, high capacity gun, thats usually easier to shoot well with, and I can also have near equivalent power to things that dont allow what I want/need. For me, thats a winner.
Again, based on what?
As far as the last part, stepping up may not be the best choice. Ill touch on that later.
.357 can be way more gun, in the right instances. In the cases of guns normally carried, its way to much from the standpoint of what you normally get in the package, and in usability. So youre right, why even go there?
I had a Glock 31 (357SIG), and I currently have a number of Glocks in 9mm. From personal experience, the 9mm's hold up better to +P+ and hot reload use, than the 357SIG did to factory spec ammo (just as a note here, Speer considers 357SIG and +P+ 9mm to be in the same pressure range, 40000psi, and when using the same or similar bullets, offer similar performance). From what Ive been told, the same wear that the 357SIG exhibited, applies to the .40s as well, although I was told it stops after awhile in the .40s. It didnt appear to be stopping in my 31. From day one, using factory spec'd ammo, the 357SIG was beating itself to death.
Two of my 9mm's, a 17 and 26 to be specific, get shot weekly, and at this point each have at least a couple of cases of Winchester 127 grain +P+ through them. Along with that, they both have more rounds of my hot reloads through them, than many people probably ever put though their guns in a lifetime, 40000+ for the 17, and somewhere over 15000 for the 26. Both these guns show only minor finish wear on the underside of the slide, where the 357SIG was heavily peening the same spot. Other than that slight finish wear, Ive had no other indication that using hot ammo in my 9mm's as been detrimental to them.
I have a bunch of guns in both calibers. Over the years, Ive carried both, and adjusted what I carried as things changed and improved. The smaller 357MAGs, are not easy to shoot with, especially if your not used to them. They certainly are not pleasant to shoot with, nor do they encourage practice. If you want to stay on top of them, you need to practice with them, and with what you intend to shoot. Personally, I dont shoot small, lightweight 357MAG's anymore. They just arent worth the effort. I barely shoot my Airweight .38's anymore either, although I do just to stay of top of them. I get more out of my Glock 26's loaded with hot ammo, and I can shoot them til the cows come home, more effectively and without discomfort.
M1Rifle30-06
New member
I actually have a .357 686 and a few 9mm's, my preferred caliber to both is .45. I have no particular horse in this race, as I own all of them 
I was just pondering. I have no intention of shooting a bunch of +p+ 9mm through any of my guns. It's just interesting to me that the lowly 9mm can supposedly be near the much loved .357 Mag
I was just pondering. I have no intention of shooting a bunch of +p+ 9mm through any of my guns. It's just interesting to me that the lowly 9mm can supposedly be near the much loved .357 Mag
Dragline45
New member
Based on the fact that most 9mm's aren't built or rated to support the 9mm +p+ rounds. What are you trying to get at? I wouldn't trust putting 9mm+p+ in any of my factory guns, just like I wouldn't put a Ruger only .45colt round in a New Vaquero.
Whether you were basing it on hearsay or personal experience.
While I probably wouldnt feed any of my 60+ year old guns a "steady" diet of it, I dont have any problem with any of the more current guns. Im basing that on personal experience. Ive shot a good bit of it out of a number of different guns, and had no issues.
Now if you move up into the realm of some of the older SMG specific ammo, were into a whole other thing. I have had one gun fail pretty quick using it, where the same gun was fine for another 25+ years with a new upper and many tens of thousands of rounds of everything from standard commercial 9mm up to +P+ through it.
Dragline45
New member
Well its good to know most modern handguns can handle it, I just wouldn't go putting it in any high value guns I really care about.
FairWarning
New member
No reason to go above +p in 9mm IMO. You can get very high performance with a 124 +p and the tactical advantages of a quick firing hi-cap platform are obvious.
Where do you see a verbatim statement from Taurus like this (or Beretta--maybe they do as I don't own Beretta 92 but I still have trouble believing their 92 is of inferior quality to the Taurus equivalent)? My manual states the following:
“Plus-P’, “PIus-P-Plus” or other ultra or high velocity ammunition generates
pressures significantly in excess of the pressures associated with standard
ammunition. Such pressures may affect the useful life of the firearm or
exceed the margin of safety built into many pistols and could therefore be
DANGEROUS."
What I have done now for over 5K rounds is fire several boxes of my carry ammo (Critical Duty of late) to ensure reliable feeding. Then I shoot range ammo when practicing. I have seen no wearing issues with my gun...?
IMO, you're making a mountain out of a mole-hill (I'm perosnally not interested in the seemingly incessant 'caliber wars').
I might add as well that this same approach has worked for me with all of my guns (again, firing my carry ammo only enough to ensure reliability--even if I could fire +P ammo indiscriminately absent durability concerns, I would not because I can't afford to).
-Cheers
Last edited:
peacefulgary
New member
This is more of a platform problem more than anything.
If you want a revolver then get a .357 magnum.
If you want an autoloader then get a 9mm pistol.
If you want a revolver then get a .357 magnum.
If you want an autoloader then get a 9mm pistol.
Interesting thread. The OP asks if the 357 magnum is a better round for defense than the 9mm +P+? I say yes there is no comparsion. The 357 magnum will penetrate deeper than the 9mm. Law enforcement found out in the mid 1980s that the 115 gr 9mm could be a issue as far as penetration. The FBI did a study after the Miami shootout in 1986. Even after taking a shot in the side of the chest and penetrating the lungs it came up short of penetrating the heart. Bad guy William Platt fought on and killed two FBI agents and seriously wounded several more. The round was a 9mm 115 gr Winchester silvertip. If the same shot would of been a 357 magnum 125 gr, the outcome of the firefight might have been different.
This is why the FBI decided to go with the 10mm round which involved into to 40 SW.
Simple put: Penetration with a deep cavity wound will destroy tissue such as vital organs and do better stopping a attacker that lighter grain rounds traveling at a high velocity. I use heavier grain rounds whether 38 special 357 magnum or 9mm.
That is why a person sees fewer 9mm pistols in officers holsters now a days.
Regards,
Howard
This is why the FBI decided to go with the 10mm round which involved into to 40 SW.
Simple put: Penetration with a deep cavity wound will destroy tissue such as vital organs and do better stopping a attacker that lighter grain rounds traveling at a high velocity. I use heavier grain rounds whether 38 special 357 magnum or 9mm.
That is why a person sees fewer 9mm pistols in officers holsters now a days.
Regards,
Howard
Exactly. Even though a revolver holds 6 to 8 rounds of 357 magnums one or two well place shots center mass will end the fight.
I still contend the reason law enforcement went to semi-autos in the eighties was because of round capacity but maybe a better reason was the lack of skill from a lot of officers in hitting their target. Remember most police officers are not "into guns". I seen some that have a hard time keeping there rounds in a target at the range. And they have hi cap bottom feeders.
Howard
A couple of observations here...
I was around when the mighty 357/125/JHP was used extensively in law enforcement. You don't hear about it much now, since that load has achieved internet fame, but there were failures to stop with it as well, even with multiple torso hits.
These 'versus' threads tend to become whizzing matches between jihadist camps. So lets take that component out of it for a minute and look at the .357 and 9mm +P+ in light of their power and delivery platform. Now there are advantages to both autos and revolvers, the latter being more amenable to oddball loads. But the autos win soundly in capacity and ease of reloading.
I have fired lots of Federal 9BPLE, their 115 grain +P+; mostly from the Beretta Centurion. This was about 1997. Regardless of how it is rated, mine handled hundreds of rounds of that load without complaint. It was also scary accurate from the Centurion and the combination produced the smallest 3-shot, 50 yard group I ever fired with any handgun regardless of caliber or type.
I happened to have a 3" Model 65 at the time, which I had taken some time to get zeroed, so I shot that revolver, using Federal's 125 grain magnum load, against the Beretta using 9BPLE. Impact receptacles were back to back 100 oz. detergent jugs filled with water, backed by an old catalog. I shot jugs with both handguns at five and fifty yards, noted damage to the jugs and how high the caps went when they were hit. I recovered bullets. When I said 'dead heat to 125 grains' earlier, it was precisely that experiment I was referencing. If the jugs had not been marked with the caliber of the bullet that hit them, you literally could not have told the difference.
So I see it like this. The .357 revolver offers an insignificant advantage with light bullets, guaranteed reliability with specialty loads and it runs off from the 9mm with heavy bullets.
The 9mm offers high capacity, cheap practice with ball and essentially .357 performance with loads like the 9BLE. It will also handle 147's if you want more penetration.
Choose the package that suits your needs best.
I was around when the mighty 357/125/JHP was used extensively in law enforcement. You don't hear about it much now, since that load has achieved internet fame, but there were failures to stop with it as well, even with multiple torso hits.
These 'versus' threads tend to become whizzing matches between jihadist camps. So lets take that component out of it for a minute and look at the .357 and 9mm +P+ in light of their power and delivery platform. Now there are advantages to both autos and revolvers, the latter being more amenable to oddball loads. But the autos win soundly in capacity and ease of reloading.
I have fired lots of Federal 9BPLE, their 115 grain +P+; mostly from the Beretta Centurion. This was about 1997. Regardless of how it is rated, mine handled hundreds of rounds of that load without complaint. It was also scary accurate from the Centurion and the combination produced the smallest 3-shot, 50 yard group I ever fired with any handgun regardless of caliber or type.
I happened to have a 3" Model 65 at the time, which I had taken some time to get zeroed, so I shot that revolver, using Federal's 125 grain magnum load, against the Beretta using 9BPLE. Impact receptacles were back to back 100 oz. detergent jugs filled with water, backed by an old catalog. I shot jugs with both handguns at five and fifty yards, noted damage to the jugs and how high the caps went when they were hit. I recovered bullets. When I said 'dead heat to 125 grains' earlier, it was precisely that experiment I was referencing. If the jugs had not been marked with the caliber of the bullet that hit them, you literally could not have told the difference.
So I see it like this. The .357 revolver offers an insignificant advantage with light bullets, guaranteed reliability with specialty loads and it runs off from the 9mm with heavy bullets.
The 9mm offers high capacity, cheap practice with ball and essentially .357 performance with loads like the 9BLE. It will also handle 147's if you want more penetration.
Choose the package that suits your needs best.
Crankgrinder
New member
Ive read most of the posts so ill bite on this. Velocity wise in certain weights on paper it may look pretty close. I say sometimes the way it looks on paper seldom tells the whole story. Even out of the short barrels the .357 has been documented to produce the "lightning bolt" effect desired by the police for so long and the .357 sig round seems to be doing well also. Although i will say im perfectly comfortable with 9mm with or without +P.
Catfishman
New member
What is a .40 Super?