9mm pistol vs 357 mag revolver

Glenn,

OldMarksman brought up a scenario of multiple BGs. My oringial post was

"Guys, I have only owned 357 mag revolvers until recently. I purchased a Glock 19 gen 4 Pistol. My question is for self defense, which would you prefer, a 357 mag revolver or a 9mm pistol to both carry and use in the home for SD?

As always, all responses are wanted."

The 357 is a 125gr. HP and the 9mm is either a 124 gr hp or a 147 gr hp for comparison if this is possible.

It morphed into something else, which happens frequently.

I frankly have done what you said and in reply#29 I was stunned that I was quicker and more accurate with my Glock vs. my Revolvers that I've been shooting since 1970. I wanted to know how other people felt about the Revolver vs. the Pistol if this is even possible.
__________________
 
It's funny. Back in the '70's, I carried a Browning hipower, and scoffed at the Model 10's in all the police holsters.
But as much as I like my G17, I also have a 3" GP100 and it gets its turn in the rotation. For HD, I feel pretty well armed with the GP.
 
What then would your recomendation about being attacked coming from a mall or in a Walmart type store?
Click to expand...
I don;t see how where I had been would enter into the picture.

My 357 carry holds 5 bullits and I also carry at least one speed loader and my Glock hold 15 and I carry one extra magazine.
Click to expand...
I retired my S&W Centennial from primary carry some years ago, for two reasons: the fie shot capacity, and my inability to control it in rapid fire with its heavy, long trigger pull.

My question is for self defense, which would you prefer, a 357 mag revolver or a 9mm pistol to both carry and use in the home for SD?
Click to expand...
I dislike the idea of using full .357 loads in a snub revolver, and I sure wouldn't choose .357 loads in a shot barreled revolver for use in the home. A reasonably sized 9mm would be my preference.
 
I love shooting revolvers but for self defense I prefer semi autos, namely Glocks. Around the house a shotgun is the weapon of choice.
 
I enjoy shooting revolvers more so I have more practice with them. If I had to choose today which I would protect myself with, I'd pick the .357 - if I was training for self-defense specifically, I think a 9mm is more versatile.

I would feel very well armed with 5 rounds of 357 in a small suburban city or hiking in the woods (and probably no safer with 15+ rounds of 9mm).
 
While the idea of multiple opponents or needing more than two shoots is poopoo'ed by many - I suggest that you try a competition match with a revolver vs. a semi and see your shooting performance and the comparative reloading times for more than one opponent or need for more than 5 or 6 shots.
Click to expand...

While I appreciate that the skills used and refined in sport shooting are useful and beneficial in real world defensive situations I find the premise that the tactical situations depicted are applicable to be tenuous.
 
Those that say the .357 magum will rupture eardrums better not ever shoot a rifle, especially the ubiquitous 5.56 carbine. They'll wind up staining their pants.

Either 9mm or .357 is just as likely to cause hearing damage.

Likewise if you have two men armed with either, it's going to come down to situation, skill, and luck. Equipment-wise, they're evenly matched.

People like to assure themselves that they can buy an advantage but their faith is poorly placed.

I made the decision of going to revolvers then to Beretta, Glock, 1911, and then back to the .357 revolver which is where I'm staying. It was a choice of personal preference. They all work just as well.
 
What tiny tiny bit of real world secondary experience I have. (Never used / never want to use a firearm on anything that had a mom) but have done a little work at a metro PD.

The reality as I have seen it is.
Have a gun. Period.

People have successfully defended themselves with .25 caliber Ravens. Like has been said pick the one you shoot best, have the most confidence in and call it a day.

Honestly given your two choices I would probably pick the Glock 19 but if you said here you need to use this Ruger GP100 I wouldn't lose any sleep. But I also shoot lots of different guns and I may suck equally with them all I am also equally confident that I can get rounds center mass with them all.

Point is I don't think the tool matters all that much. I think it can provide ancillary benefits but generally speaking. Shoot what you like and be decent with it and have access to it.
 
Have a gun. Period.
Click to expand...
That's step one.

People have successfully defended themselves with .25 caliber Ravens.
Click to expand...
And the .25 ACP has failed miserably. I would choose something else.

Like has been said pick the one you shoot best, have the most confidence in and call it a day.
Click to expand...
Misplaced confidence is a useless commodity. Without adequate penetration, a firearm is likely to let one down.

Point is I don't think the tool matters all that much.
Click to expand...
The tool can make a difference, but it will rank below mindset and skill set in effectiveness.
 
I wasn't necessarily advocating a .22/.25/.32 whatever lowest common denominator tool just pointing out that I have know them to be successfully used. The OPs choices are both very good choices in calibers that are very adequate. .38,.357 or 9x19 and therefore already fall into the you have a good tool just work with the one you gel with the most.


But yes don't run out and buy a Raven .25 for your self defense needs. :)
 
The tactical advantage for carry is fully 9mm. To me, that applies against other calibers as well. The slim platforms available for 9mm make it ideal, and it doesn't lose very much from short barrels either.

With .45, you can reduce it to .38 Special +P energy levels quickly with short barrels, only your .45 will recoil more. With a .357 snubby, you are firing a blast cannon that is almost as cruel to your ears as to your poor opponent's body. If you use milder rounds, you are getting back to the .38 Special +P range again. The .357 measures several decibels higher than 9mm, which is a massive difference. It's science, not opinion. A 4" .357 with a mild 125 gr JHP such as a Golden Saber or PDX1 or Critical Duty is a potent performer and easier to live with, although not exactly a small gun...

I bought a .357 snubby for my mom to use with .38 Special +P because I didn't think she was up to the task of handling a semi-auto well under stress. You can't beat it for simplicity, and safety is not a problem. But if she was a gun enthusiast, I would have gotten her a CZ P01 or 75 variant in 9mm.
 
I imagine the linked analysis by Greg Ellfritz has been cited before, but I like it. He studied every report of actual shootings he could find, both LEO and civilian, over a 10 year period. It represents over 1,700 people getting shot. Personally, I tend to pay more attention to real gunfight stats versus ballistics stats. They have shortcomings from a theoretical statistical perspective, but people don't get attacked by chronographs or gelatin.

Of the major calibers, .357 placed in the top three in five of Ellfritz' categories, the only caliber to do so. The most "top threes" any other caliber got was three.
  1. Average number of rounds until incapacitation: #3 at 1.7
  2. % of people who were not incapacitated: #1 at 9%
  3. One-shot-stop %: #2 at 44%
  4. Accuracy (head and torso hits): #3 at 81%
  5. % actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit): #3 at 61% (This is similar to the third item above, but it excludes hits in arms and legs, presumably because those kind of hits may take someone out of the fight, but not necessarily illustrate the stopping power of the round.)
9mm placed in the top three in only one category:
  1. % of people who were not incapacitated: #3 at 14%

The only caliber that gave .357 a run for it's money was .44 Magnum ("Do you feel lucky, punk? Well do ya?"). I don't pretend this study is the be all and end all, but I also think it shouldn't be ignored. In the real world, .357 really puts opponents down.

https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power
 
In the real world, .357 really puts opponents down.
Click to expand...
But according to Ellfritz, the .32 scored higher in terms of one-shot stops, and the .380, about the same as the .357.

Ellfritz opines that 9mm is better than the data would seem to indicate, and he explains why: a 9MM can be fired more rapidly than some of the others, and th number of rounds rife at a charging assailant would be expected to be higher. He goes on to say that some of the shots might not have been repaired to effect a stop. With the .357, the defender would lily not have been able to fire more rounds.

Gregg makes it clear that what the bullets hit is far more important than caliber.
 
Another problem with studies such as these is that it's hard to take skill level into the mix a steely eyed marksman who puts a round through the forehead is going to skew the numbers vs an untrained 9mm user who sprays 17 rounds and only gets a few peripheral hits.

This isn't to say all 9mm shooters have no skill nor do all revolver shooters exhibit skill.

Any round that penetrates far enough to take out the nervous system should result in a pretty quick lights out result. Other than that it's far more likely that a psychological stop will occur.

I do believe the different "martial" calibers do exhibit ballistic pros and cons vs each other but not so much that that difference makes a statistical impact. (Better barrier penetration, better penetration, larger wound track, more capacity etc. )

I stand by the thought that any decent tool firing any decent quality and caliber of ammunition fired by a competent user will provide as good a chance as any other to prevail. The problem is you can have the best gear, the best training, the best speed and still get dead on a day where you don't have the best luck. Moral of the story is don't get into fights. :)

Again Glock 19 vs .357 revolver......two well proven platforms and calibers in the real world. I think the Glock in this case offers more advantages but neither is a patently wrong choice assuming quality ammo and training.

Hasn't anybody mentioned 10mm yet? I mean isn't there a rule or something. :)
Something, something 10mm. Big baddaboom. Lots of bigbaddaboom in the magazine. Half a shot stop. Vaporizes elk and your enemies alike. Only way to be sure. :D;)

But then again my bedside gun is a .40 so I obviously have no friggin idea what I'm talking about. :p
 
Last edited:
Another problem with studies such as these is that it's hard to take skill level into the mix a steely eyed marksman who puts a round through the forehead is going to skew the numbers vs an untrained 9mm user who sprays 17 rounds and only gets a few peripheral hits.
Click to expand...
The idea of the "steely eyed marksman" might apply in the case of a bulls-eye shooter, a person engaged in hostage rescue situation, or an assassin.

It won't apply to a defender who is attacked by a fast-moving assailant at close range.

In Defensive Revolver Fundamentals, Grant Cunningham showed some comparative targets--one with what we might call a small "group size", and another with a larger spread.

The subject is the balance of speed and precision. Grant explains that striving for excessive precision, because it necessarily takes more time, is not the best way to defend oneself against an attacker. If all of the shots hit somewhere in the target area, the precision is adequate.

I recommend the book.
 
Bamaranger, stated this so well, I've quoted it again. I would only re-emphasize: the 9mm auto pays for it's Capacity and smaller size with Complexity; while the revolver offers Simplicity at the espense of Capacity. Well done sir. Best Regards, Rod
Everybody will have personal preferences, but Law Enforcement decided on this answer years ago. Rarely ever now do you see an LEO with a revolver. My own feelings are mixed. For a true novice and those not really interested,the revolver with MILD loads is easier to learn. Open it up, fill the holes, close it, shoot till it won't shoot anymore, repeat. But........

My own experience and observation is that a 9mm semiauto is easier for most interested folks to shoot well. The higher capacity is a plus, even if you likely won't need it (but who knows what your shooting will look like). The more complex manual of arms will require more of you mentally and you will have to pay some attention to maintenance, and stay familiar with the autopistol. The 9mm/124 is not a powerhouse, but many consider it adequate.

The 125/.357 is a powerhouse, but is hard for some to shoot well, I'd be inclined to use .38 spl for novices. In a revolver of sufficient size to tame mag ammo, it becmes difficult to conceal. Blast and flash with full house loads is horrendous. The DA revolver requires some hand strength to run well, and the limited capacity could be a drawback. Reloading is complex and slow for most, even with loaders. You get 6 for sure, but what if you need more?
Click to expand...
 
OldMarksman: I agree with both your previous posts. As I said in my post, stats like Ellfritz' presents have problems and I think he is pretty open about that. But I also think there is enough evidence there that it is worth thinking about. It makes me wonder if something like the .357 Sig is not the best of both worlds and perhaps the ideal cartridge. I don't own one myself, but it seems like a worthy thought.

Also, +1 on Cunningham's book. I have read it over and over and I think there are concepts in there that even auto shooters can benefit from. But I think there is a counter-point to be made about precision. It is one thing to intentionally sacrifice precision for speed at close range. It is another thing to not develop the capability of precise shooting.

First, not all fights will occur at close range. For longer distances, you need the ability to bring precision. Second, even at close range, the stress of a real situation will likely reduce what precision you have. So if you can do a 6" group on a quick draw, rapid fire string at seven yards on the range, you might only do a 12" group in a real situation where you are under fire. That's fine. But if you can only do a 12" group on the range, you might be doing 24" in a real situation, which means some rounds may miss altogether. I think there are many documented police shootings that bear this out.
 
Mr. Ellifritz did bring up one salient
point in using 9mm Ammo. His point
was that a portion of the Ammo used
was ball Ammo. My original post stated
That the Ammo discussion was
Hollow Point to Hollow Point. From
what I could discern, Hollow Point
Ammo is more effective in all categories
than Ball Ammo. As a non professional
Am I correct or am I not?
 
Making an assumption that one type of ammo is generally better requires that the targets are all the same. Ball ammo was developed as a military round to insure that the bullet would penetrate through heavy clothing and gear that soldiers wear. This is what gave 9mm ammo the reputation for "over penetration". Hollow points can clog and not expand or start expanding before they reach flesh in some cases. There is no "magic" bullet. You need to match the bullet for its use. Personal self defense rounds for summer use when light clothing is worn and winter ammo when heavy clothes are worn might require different bullets. I don't carry my 9mm but I have selected the bullets I use to match the task at hand. In 3 gun I will need to knock down steel targets and punch holes on paper targets with it.The toughest target is the star wheel where the steel targets have to be knocked out of a dovetailed lock. I am using a 124 grain HP for that reason. The HP has a longer dwell time on the steel before it is destroyed by the heat of impact so it does the job with less weight and less recoil. Less recoil means quicker shots and less time to get on the next target. In 3 gun accurate speed rules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top