9mm vs. .357 magnum-Myth Busted

Status
Not open for further replies.
I bought into the ".357Mag snub = 9mm service auto" trope as a new shooter....as well as the "more rounds = better" trope. It led me to trade a great-condition 2.5" Security Six for a Ruger P95. And I have regretted that trade for years. I'm glad that video has taught me the truth.....though now I regret that trade even more.

I'm still a 9mm and .357Mag aficionado. But the capacity issue isn't as important now. Only accurate hits count.....and, just because you have lots of ammo doesn't mean you'll have time to use it.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 
mavracer said:
I see this bovine feces parroted all over the internet, apparently these folks have never shot any living creatures with both.
Click to expand...



I agree, and from what I see being an RO at a local range, “most” people are carrying single stack 9’s(shield/G43) these days.
 
Thanks, Old Marksman, the book looks interesting and useful to read.
Click to expand...
Much of the book pertains specifically to issues involving the liability of police officers and their communities in lawsuits, specifically those that fall under 42 USC 1983, with a good discussion of the kinds of police-involved shootings that would not.

In the discussion, the authors discuss the unique duties of law enforcement officers, not relevant to civilians, and lawsuits associated with the Fourth Amendment rights of citizens, also not relevant.

But in discussing the realities of whether a police officer's actions were or were not Constitutionally appropriate, the authors discuss a number of subjects that can be very relevant to civilian self defense.

Among these are physiological and psychological reasons to stress, both during an encounter and in the recollection of same; recognition and assessment of immediate danger; wounding and incapacitation, and how public perceptions have been distorted by exposure to screen fiction; what constitutes adequate and appropriate training, and what does not--PLUS things that I have not yet read in the book.
 
No it really doesn't address it at all.
Click to expand...
Sure it does.

If a handgun bullet expands properly, penetrates adequately, and strikes the right place in a human body, there is no reason to believe that a bullet of the same size fired at a somewhat higher velocity into the same person in the same way will be more effective-- thus the comment, correct in that context, "magnum loads in a revolver add no incapacitation benefit".

But if one is using the handgun to take game or to defend against larger animals, the statement would not be true.

That is addressed in post #45: "Another thing, while the 9mm Parabellum is considered excellent for shooting people, its not well thought of for shooting anything else, large or small, and the .357 Magnum is well regarded in that respect".

The fact that someone may not have "shot any living creatures with both" does not change the argument or alter the underlying facts. Living creatures of different species react differently.

Nor would it be necessary to shoot different living creatures with both to learn something. A person who shoots a large bear with a 9mm and finds the penetration inaduequate has all he or she needs in the way of experience to conclude that a magnum would likely have been better. And an officer who shoots a person at a challenging angle that requires considerable penetration, and whose shots effect the necessary penetration under the circumstance with something other than a magnum, need not then shoot a person with a magnum to find it was not more effective.
 
Time to settle this with facts.

Fact: 6 .357s will finish off at least a dozen bad guys.

Fact: 17 9 mm will barely finish off three bad guys.

End of story.
 
But yes, you can theoretically stop 17 threats with 17 9mm and only 6 with the 357. But that isn't what the supposed debate and video demo is about.
Click to expand...

You can do more than 6 with the .357, but ya gotta line 'em up. :D:D:D
 
Semantics gentlemen

I believe what we have here is a difference in what we're comparing. Individual cartridge types vs defense systems. A 14 round 9mm autoloading pistol is a defense system. The .357 S&W magnum is a cartridge type.
Without a doubt, cartridge to cartridge comparison, shows the .357 to be in another hemisphere in power. That being said, a six shot wheel gun "system" is at a disadvantage compared to a 17 round semi auto in an extended exchange of fire.
Personally, I believe that a six shot .357 is more than sufficient for "personal defense". Law enforcement has more diverse situations to deal with, that may require more firepower.
FBI statistics show 2.5 rounds per personal altercation.
 
If a handgun bullet expands properly, penetrates adequately, and strikes the right place in a human body, there is no reason to believe that a bullet of the same size fired at a somewhat higher velocity into the same person in the same way will be more effective-- thus the comment, correct in that context, "magnum loads in a revolver add no incapacitation benefit".

But if one is using the handgun to take game or to defend against larger animals, the statement would not be true.

That is addressed in post #45: "Another thing, while the 9mm Parabellum is considered excellent for shooting people, its not well thought of for shooting anything else, large or small, and the .357 Magnum is well regarded in that respect".

The fact that someone may not have "shot any living creatures with both" does not change the argument or alter the underlying facts. Living creatures of different species react differently.

Nor would it be necessary to shoot different living creatures with both to learn something. A person who shoots a large bear with a 9mm and finds the penetration inaduequate has all he or she needs in the way of experience to conclude that a magnum would likely have been better. And an officer who shoots a person at a challenging angle that requires considerable penetration, and whose shots effect the necessary penetration under the circumstance with something other than a magnum, need not then shoot a person with a magnum to find it was not more effective.
Click to expand...

There is so much wrong in that post I don't even know where to start.

You are correct with the last statement and you prove it out. A person doesn't have to have any actual knowledge about a subject to draw a conclusion. However someone who's without the knowledge and facts will usually draw an incorrect conclusion.
 
There is so much wrong in that post I don't even know where to start.
Click to expand...
Try.

Do you believe that, if a bullet penetrated adequately against any target, that the same bullet fired on the same path at a higher velocity would be more effective, within handgun velocity ranges? If so, why?

Do you really believe that handguns that are adequate of stopping humans would necessarily be adequate for shooing large game, or that it is necessary to use a handgun that is well suited for shooting large game for self defense against humans? If so, why?

Do you not believe that living creatures of different species do not reacts differently to bullet wounds (i.e., that the same terminal ballistics performance is repaired for different species? If so, why?
 
Be it a 9mm, a .357, or even a measly .22 short rimfire round, I don't desire to be struck with ANY of them... Lol!
 
Do you believe that, if a bullet penetrated adequately against any target, that the same bullet fired on the same path at a higher velocity would be more effective, within handgun velocity ranges? If so, why?
Click to expand...
Absolutely why because I've seen with my own eyes significant damage from temporary wound cavity (or whatever you feel the need to call it) at handgun velocity.
 
Do you really believe that handguns that are adequate of stopping humans would necessarily be adequate for shooing large game, or that it is necessary to use a handgun that is well suited for shooting large game for self defense against humans? If so, why?
Click to expand...
Um given an option yes I would absolutely prefer something adequate for large game, preferably a 308 or 12 gauge.
 
Do you not believe that living creatures of different species do not reacts differently to bullet wounds (i.e., that the same terminal ballistics performance is repaired for different species? If so, why?
Click to expand...
All living creatures will have one of two responses fight or flight (before you say it freeze is a subset of flight).
A: Even within a species the response may be different.
B: If fight is the chosen response, a physiological stop will require damage to the CNS, blood pressure dropped to zero or significant structural damage regardless of species.
C: The more damage, the sooner this can happen, the better.
 
Why would you suppose that the FBI load is superior to the .357 Mag for bipedal self-defense?
Click to expand...
Not sure what the heck you're trying to get at but external ballistically speaking it's not.
As a package it's a good choice because it's about as much recoil as the average shooter can handle.
For the record it's what I have loaded in the LCR in my pocket right now, because full tilt 357s are too much for me to shoot without readjusting my grip between shots in a 13oz revolver.
However were I to carry one of my full size 357s they'd have 145gr silvertips in them.
 
SA1911 stated ;
"UncleEd,
Your facts are nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion. They do not resemble facts in the least.
I have a friend who has put 6 .357 Mag man stopper rounds in the thorax of a very bad guy. The bad guy wasn't fazed. A single 00 buck round from an 870 reduced the bad guy to evidence and property of the coroner." BS!!! Talk about "unsubstantiated opinion"! Same guy who denies that any LEO's in America have to qualify in incremental distances up to 25 yards. You won't last long on here trolling, it won't be tolerated.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely why because I've seen with my own eyes significant damage from temporary wound cavity (or whatever you feel the need to call it) at handgun velocity.
Click to expand...
I refer you to this:


Numerous sources are citied that give an assessment contrary to what you have "seen with your own eyes".

Of course, all of the discussion is on the wounding of human targets.

Many of the case studies describe the actual results of wounding as it occurred. These discussions would probably surprise many people.

One interesting observation is that the immediate reaction of some attackers to bullet wounds results from preconceived beliefs--from their having been led, by watching screen fiction, to expect certain effects.

The subject of temporary wound cavity is well covered.

You will have to decide how much effort to put into reading the parts of the book relating to issues involving the liability of police officers and their communities in lawsuits, specifically those that fall under 42 USC 1983; to the unique duties of law enforcement officers, not relevant to civilians, and lawsuits associated with the Fourth Amendment rights of citizens, also not relevant; to the physiological and psychological reasons to stress, both during an encounter and in the recollection of same; recognition and assessment of immediate danger; to how how public perceptions have been distorted by exposure to screen fiction; to what constitutes adequate and appropriate training, and what does not; to the subject of "suicide by cop"; and to other things.

The discussion of wounding effectiveness, of incapacitation, and of immediate human reactions to having been shot is relevant to his thread, even though the context was to frame how those factors and public misconceptions relating thereto can color the issue of how shooting someone--which is the most drastic form of seizure, as defined in the Fourth Amendment--may be seen to be Constitutionally proper, or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top