Then what was the point of having it chambered for 9X23?
9mm revolvers ?
- Thread starter RAfiringline
- Start date
Then what was the point of having it chambered for 9X23?
This thread is like being on a Merry-go-round!
Agreed. I get a kick out of people using factory loads to prove what a caliber is and is not capable of.
First off, we need to address a big industry myth that has formed a false premise for most of the discussion in this thread: Federal and Remington and other big manufacturers load for pressure, not velocity. Good example is i have chronoed the same 357 “factory load” from Federal on the same day same gun etc. But the identical ammo was from two different lots. There was a 150+ fps difference between the two lots. Pulled the bullets and they were loaded with different powder. Called Federal and was told they load to pressure, not velocity, and switch powders all the time for bulk ammo and even their premium ammo, using whatever powders were available. I’ve spoken with folks at Barnes after Remington acquired them and was told Remington does similarly. I’d be shocked if Winchester was any different. So you see, this whole debate using factory published loads is based on a false premise. The ammo you’re using and testing and arguing about isn’t even consistent from lot to lot.
Now if you go to handloads, where you can control every element of the ammo, you can load the 357 well beyond what 9mm can do, and 9mm does indeed land between 38 special and 357 mag for most powder and bullet combos.
But anyways, you really shouldn’t be debating velocities and powers of different factory loads. Doing so is just based on a false premise.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is correct. As far as it goes. The power (energy) that operates the slide isn't going into accelerating the bullet. And, it NEVER DOES even when its not operating a slide.
The pressure that operates everything is pushing equally in ALL directions at the same time. It doesn't push the bullet out the muzzle and then run back and work the slide. The amount of force does change as the size of the vessel containing it changes (expansion ratio), and there is also change due to progressive burning of the powder, but one fact of physics that does not change is that all the available pressure at any moment in time is equally distributed across the entire surface area of the closed vessel.
The small movement of the slide AND barrel, locked together, before the bullet exits the bore, can have NO effect on the pressure pushing the bullet. Locked together, there is no change in the size of the space the powder gas fills, other than the increase due to the bullet moving down the bore, an that is the same, whether there is a slide, or not.
And, until the bullet exits the muzzle, it's a closed system. All the pressure is still contained inside. No bleed off, no way for the pressure to change, no where for it to go, until the exit of the bullet vents the system.
Pressure is pushing in all directions. Pressure on the sides, top and bottom seals the brass to the chamber walls. Pressure on each end pushes equally as well, moving the bullet faster (because its much lighter) and further (because its not fastened to anything). That same pressure is pushing on the case head, and because it can't move, on the slide. Nothing is "taken away" from the pressure on the bullet.
But, just for the sake of argument, let's say it did actually "drain" some of the force pushing the bullet. SO WHAT??? Any velocity "stolen" from the bullet by moving the slide before the bullet leaves the barrel will be less than the variation between individual guns and likely individual rounds of ammo.
you may find a calculatable difference, but you won't find a practical difference, so it is, in effect, irrelevant.
Why don't you tell the readers what aktinofibrils are, since you seem to be proudly boasting about studying them. And are they living or fossil?
You proposed the idea, you have the burden of proof to demonstrate it.
Definitely give you a [emoji106] for ingenuity...
However, just from practice, I prefer the Del Fatti carriers. To me, I prefer the carrier out of the equation by the time I get to inserting the moonclip into the cylinder.
If I’m reloading under stress, that carrier is flying off the reload pretty quick... due to the extended button. After that, I’ll worry about it after everything settles down... if appropriate.
"To me, I prefer the carrier out of the equation by the time I get to inserting the moonclip into the cylinder".
A lot to be said for that. Good point. However, they do eat up a lot of storage volume till you dump the carriers.
I liked Post #144. All these various rounds will do the job just fine (I even carry a Micro .380 a good bit of the time).
For me (in no particular order), the main benefits of the 9mm in the snubbie are
Ammo commonality with two of my four semi-automatics
Very quick ejection and reloading
Reduced volume of reserve ammunition (9mm rounds are relatively small)
I don't particularly like semi-automatics - I do like single action revolvers.
Totally off-topic - A public announcement about the EHT is live streaming at 8 am Central time this morning. Possibly the first images of the event horizons of Sagittarius A* and maybe M87. I'm excited (which is why I'm up this early - I'm not a morning person)
A lot to be said for that. Good point. However, they do eat up a lot of storage volume till you dump the carriers.
I liked Post #144. All these various rounds will do the job just fine (I even carry a Micro .380 a good bit of the time).
For me (in no particular order), the main benefits of the 9mm in the snubbie are
Ammo commonality with two of my four semi-automatics
Very quick ejection and reloading
Reduced volume of reserve ammunition (9mm rounds are relatively small)
I don't particularly like semi-automatics - I do like single action revolvers.
Totally off-topic - A public announcement about the EHT is live streaming at 8 am Central time this morning. Possibly the first images of the event horizons of Sagittarius A* and maybe M87. I'm excited (which is why I'm up this early - I'm not a morning person)
Last edited:
No but there is some implication here that the energy from that explosion is used efficiently only to accelerate the bullet.
There is a lot of energy that is "lost" in the equation to things other than the intended use. Hence recoil. If all the energy was being used solely accelerated the bullet than the premise that any energy used for anything else is lost. But this energy is already lost to recoil.
Thus if I can steal energy that would otherwise go to recoil to operate the slide I would not be stealing any energy that actually accelerated the bullet.
Not by attribution. The Havamal is considered (sold as) "The Words of Odin". The Poetic Edda (and others) are considered the preservation of the Norse religion and tales of great individuals. Virtually all that we have at this point of any of them were the historic works of church scholars in the medieval ages putting together what was largely information passed from generation to generation by word and story.
Last edited:
Cosmodragoon
New member
I thought that the slide was operating under the recoil energy. I chalked up the difference in felt recoil between blowback, tilting barrel, and rotating barrel pistols as a matter of energy distribution.
We talk about using recoil, or gas to operate the action. People tend to think this energy being used is used UP, doing its work. It isn't. Nothing is used up, its only transferred. The difference in felt recoil is due to the difference in TIME transferring the force to your hand.
Take three guns, give them identical weight, and identical ammo. Make one gas operated, one recoil operated and one standing breech manually operated. Input energy (cartridge firing) is the same for all, so recoil energy is the same for all. But the FEEL of the recoil in your hands will be different, because the rate it gets to you is different in each design.
We have wandered about a bit, discussed performance of different rounds in snub nose barrels, heard how the 9mm (certain loads) is plenty good enough, how the .357 is too much, how the average shooter will do better with the 9mm in a snubnose than a .357, and I'm not arguing that.
My point is this, since the guns are approximately the same size why limit your options to the 9mm round? You may not want, or need all the power the .357 can deliver, that's fine. You don't have to use it. In terms of bullet weight and velocity the .357 can do more than the 9mm. Which ALSO means you can load the .357 to do exactly what the 9mm does. Same size & weight bullet, at the same speed. Unused capability of full house .357 isn't "wasted", its just unused. If you have a .357 and shoot 9mm level loads, because its all you want or need, fine. If things change and you want/need the full power of the .357, its there, with a change of ammo. With a 9mm, its not.
So, since both can deliver the same thing coming out of the barrel, what is the advantage to the 9mm, if any? Moon clips over a speedloader? Possibly, but is the very small time difference in reloading something that is actually significant "for most people"?? I don't think so.
I don't have a DA 9mm revolver, but I do have a DA .45 that uses clips. However, it is a top break, which adds a different factor to the mix.
Clips have their down sides too. A bent clip can tie up your gun during a reload. There's no free lunch.
I think any advantage the 9MM may have is in availability and cost of ammunition to the non-reloader. Of course this can backfire as well. When was the last time there was a run on .38 / .357 ammunition?
Without the factor of cost, availability, or interchangeability of the 9MM with other pistols the owner may already own / carry I do not think you can make an argument for it. But all three of those factors may play a part in an individuals decision.
Edit: Theoretically a 9MM revolver could be shorter than a .357 but I don't think any of the revolvers we are discussing are.
Without the factor of cost, availability, or interchangeability of the 9MM with other pistols the owner may already own / carry I do not think you can make an argument for it. But all three of those factors may play a part in an individuals decision.
Edit: Theoretically a 9MM revolver could be shorter than a .357 but I don't think any of the revolvers we are discussing are.
Last edited:
"scholars in the medieval ages putting together what was largely information passed from generation to generation by word and story".
Some of it is goofy; other parts are amazingly accurate. You can stand at Gudrid's home at L'Anse aux Meadows, Newfoundland and recognise the specific terrain features described in the Sagas.
"My point is this, since the guns are approximately the same size why limit your options to the 9mm round?"
I agree, and I don't. My three 637-2 J-frames have three cylinders and yokes each.
One stainless in .38Sp+P, one titanium in .38Sp+P/.357Mag, and one in titanium 9mm.
All three can get the job done, but the 9mm is more convenient and also matches two of my four semi-autos.
Some of it is goofy; other parts are amazingly accurate. You can stand at Gudrid's home at L'Anse aux Meadows, Newfoundland and recognise the specific terrain features described in the Sagas.
"My point is this, since the guns are approximately the same size why limit your options to the 9mm round?"
I agree, and I don't. My three 637-2 J-frames have three cylinders and yokes each.
One stainless in .38Sp+P, one titanium in .38Sp+P/.357Mag, and one in titanium 9mm.
All three can get the job done, but the 9mm is more convenient and also matches two of my four semi-autos.
Last edited:
TruthTellers
New member
While ammo cost and availability is a big plus to 9mm, I don't think the point of owning one over the .38/.357 is ammo availability during a panic, it's simply what works best for the person in a defensive shooting.
With a snub, most .38+P isn't as powerful as standard pressure 9mm, so 9mm has a ballistic advantage whilst also having better JHP bullets that expand from short barrels, but .357 is so powerful and has so much recoil and blast it affects follow up shots and isn't exactly an inexpensive round to shoot, nor one I'd want to shoot more than a few cylinders of due to the recoil. However, once the barrel is 3 inches long, 9mm loses big to .357 and some .38+P.
In regards to snub revolvers, with 9mm, shooting them all day won't break the bank or your hand. More practice, more confidence means better results.
And it's this exact type of misrepresentation that distorts the discussion.
Pick the weakest 357 magnum load then compare it with a +P 9mm load.
I didn't pick either one. Just Googled and that was what popped up.
I shoot 147 gr myself (because of my titanium cylinders). Was looking for a comparison between 135 gr .357 short barrel and 147 gr 9mm that I had seen earlier, but didn't see it just now. I do remember that the 135gr .357 was 298 ft-lb and the 147gr 9mm 35,000 psi was 292 ft-lb.
In both cases, the .357 was more powerful than the 9mm, which is what we would expect.
Me, I don't care which is more powerful, both get the job done. As does .38Sp.
I shoot 147 gr myself (because of my titanium cylinders). Was looking for a comparison between 135 gr .357 short barrel and 147 gr 9mm that I had seen earlier, but didn't see it just now. I do remember that the 135gr .357 was 298 ft-lb and the 147gr 9mm 35,000 psi was 292 ft-lb.
In both cases, the .357 was more powerful than the 9mm, which is what we would expect.
Me, I don't care which is more powerful, both get the job done. As does .38Sp.