zincwarrior
New member
Gotcha. Preferences are valid to me. My preference is an m&pc for normal carry or a m&p 5in if wearing a suit.
9mm vs. .357 magnum-Myth Busted
- Thread starter Rangerrich99
- Start date
- Status
chrisabraham
New member
I love the guy from YouTube. He tries to be neutral. I've been watching him a lot and covet his shooting jacket. He and Life Sized Potato really make me want a.357 SIG but only in the form of a Steyr M357-- but I hear it's a complete unicorn. So, a .40 S&W M40 and a prayer.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
chrisabraham
New member
I also really want a revolver now.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
OldMarksman
Staff
What??
A sonic boom, which is caused by something moving through a gas at a velocity exceeding the speed of sound, is a pressure wave, not static pressure.
Static pressure involves equations such as P = (rho)gh, PV/T=C, or PiVi = PfVf. There is no "shock", but a vessel may burst.
Been that way for centuries.
OldMarksman
Staff
going back to the OP, yes, a .357 magnum can be expected to break concrete blocks or pumpkins or watermelons with greater drama than a 9MM Parabellum. that should sunrise no one.
zincwarrior
New member
Yes but .45acp will blow the turret right off a German panther tank. Just tossing the bullet with your hand will blow the door off a car.
I understand that there are still a very few in use, for special duties, however, that's not the point.
The point being missed is that neither the military nor the police have the safety of their members as the paramount object. The MISSION is the most important thing. Individual officer /soldier is important, but not THE most important thing.
This is different from my personal objective, where the defense/protection of my personal butt is the paramount goal.
Revolvers, and even barrels longer than 4" are not tactically obsolete in my personal world.
If the .45 was that good, I wonder why there was so much complaint about the Sherman's 75mm vs. the Panther...
(though the .45 could blow up a Tiger!
I saw Tom Hanks do it, in Saving Private Ryan!! 
The Mustang was just window dressing!
)Seriously, while I appreciate the humor in those kind of statements, please use the smilies to show everyone it is meant as humor. People who don't know better might actually think you are being serious...
I will agree that if you are shooting a 125gr slug at ~1300fps, whether from a maxed out (+p+) 9mm, or from an underloaded (mid range load) .357 Magnum, you are going to get similar performance.
Another point to consider, not every 9mm pistol will handle the hot +p+. If you have one, fine. But if you don't, then what? What use is a hot ammo loading, if you don't have a gun that can shoot it, and not break??
Everything chambered in .357 Magnum will handle the mid-range loads (1300fps) and some will handle a lot more.
The 9mm Luger round, in some loadings, and certain guns made for that are very, very good at what they do. Other 9mm loads and guns, not as much.
Not seeing anyone touting the original 9mm loading (124gr FMJ @ 1050fps from a 4" Luger).
MandolinMan
New member
The concept of hydrostatic shock has been a recurring topic here lately. Perhaps it deserves a separate thread.
OldMarksman
Staff
Since there is no such thing, I cannot see the point. But on second thought....
There are two kinds of pressure in fluids: static pressure and dynamic pressure. Shock, in terms of fluids, is a phenomenon that relates to a pressure wave, which involves dynamic pressure.
Dynamic pressure involves a wave that is propagated by a disturbance, That disturbance is caused by relative motion---such as the speed of an aircraft or other body in flight, or an explosion causing the rapid movement of the fluid. The wave imparts energy to whatever it impinges, and sufficient energy can cause destruction.
That is what people refer to when they use the incorrect term "hydrostatic shock".
Technically, the term hydrostatic involves a fluid, whether compressible or incompressible, that is at rest (i.e., not moving, relative to the object on which pressure impinges). Examples include barometric pressure, fluid pressure on a submerged vessel, boiler pressure, or the pressure in your propane tank. We wouldn't use that term to describe the effects of a projectile.
In my day, we learned all of this in high school or college physics, and some of us went into more depth in the study of fluids in engineering school.
The fact that the term that people often use is an oxymoron does not mean that the phenomenon to which they refer is not real, however .
Destruction of body tissue caused by dynamic pressure waves was first studied in depth during WWII. A trauma surgeon named Chamberlain observed that tissue was damaged by the effects of very high velocity bullets that had not contacted that part of the tissue. By the way, Chamberlain and his colleagues did not use the term "hydrostatic shock".
That term came into being later, in the writings of Jack O'Connor, Roy Weatherby, and others. I once had some of Jack's earliest writings on the subject. Jack was a hunter, and a writer. He had been an English teacher, and he became a professor of journalism.
Someone mused earlier that he thought that "hydrostatic shock" is an "unproved theory".
Not so.
There's more to it than the fact that self-contadictory terms have been used to describe it, however. The dynamic pressure wave requires velocity that one does not encounter with most handgun bullets. Thus, when Dr. Marvin Fackler claimed that there was no such damage from projectiles, he was basing his conclusion on observations involving velocity ranges in which it did not exist. Add enough velocity, and you will certainly see it.
It was certainly evident when a bullet from Jack O'Connor's beloved .270 Winchester rifle hit its target.
Off the original topic, but since it was requested...I hope this helps.
Anyone desiring to put this into a separate thread is free to use it.
Bluecthomas
New member
A 40gr 22 fired from a same length barrel as your 55gr 223, at much different velocities, produces radically different effects on targets such as water bottles and even the self healing ground targets.
Velocity really matters.
Stupid person math, mass x velocity = force
Smarter person math also includes the distance/time to decelerate.
Ammo selection also matters. Hot and hollow gonna do more than cheap round nose range ammo.
9mm offers advantages. Price per round is a big one. Quicker reloads, or higher capacity per load, of yout gun via switching mags is more about the gun type than caliber.
357, finger hole in front, golf ball in back.
45 will never be dead. Many of the newest designs in ammo are available in 45 too.
And a sharp stick can still kill too. Or a club.
That's what most these comparison tests "proving" anything forget.
Short of Capt kirks phaser, with settings ranging from stung to vaporize, no gun will ever be obsolete.
But even on the bridge of the Enterprise, with Dr crusher standing by, 2 in the head from grandpa's WWII 1911 still gonna be lethal.
Velocity really matters.
Stupid person math, mass x velocity = force
Smarter person math also includes the distance/time to decelerate.
Ammo selection also matters. Hot and hollow gonna do more than cheap round nose range ammo.
9mm offers advantages. Price per round is a big one. Quicker reloads, or higher capacity per load, of yout gun via switching mags is more about the gun type than caliber.
357, finger hole in front, golf ball in back.
45 will never be dead. Many of the newest designs in ammo are available in 45 too.
And a sharp stick can still kill too. Or a club.
That's what most these comparison tests "proving" anything forget.
Short of Capt kirks phaser, with settings ranging from stung to vaporize, no gun will ever be obsolete.
But even on the bridge of the Enterprise, with Dr crusher standing by, 2 in the head from grandpa's WWII 1911 still gonna be lethal.
... I love this forum but we do silly things here sometimes
*Like for real actually trying to compare 9mm vs .357 and imply that there is no real world difference between the two round for round
*And while I'm at it trying to say that this very unscientific video proves much of anything. Shooting at cinder blocks with two different calibers implies nothing, shot placement will mean more to the ease of destruction than the raw energy imparted by the rounds since both rounds will pass through the cinder block and not expend all of it's energy in the testing medium
*Like for real actually trying to compare 9mm vs .357 and imply that there is no real world difference between the two round for round
*And while I'm at it trying to say that this very unscientific video proves much of anything. Shooting at cinder blocks with two different calibers implies nothing, shot placement will mean more to the ease of destruction than the raw energy imparted by the rounds since both rounds will pass through the cinder block and not expend all of it's energy in the testing medium
Ok, I just gotta hit on this one, because one hears it so often.
9mm is cheaper. Yep, absolutely, 9mm FMJ ammo is cheaper. Now go price some of the +P+ stuff that the claims are being made about.
Not exactly bargain ammo there!
One of the big problems with the 9mm is people's perceptions, and lack of understanding the information given. They hear the "myth" about 9mm being as good as .357, and go out and buy a box of ball ammo (because it's cheapest), and THINK they got something as good as .357 Magnum.
One sees the same thing with the .223 for home defense. People claim (and rightly so) that .223 soft points/hollowpoints penetrate walls less than the usual pistol rounds. But what too many people don't hear is "softpoints" they go out and buy FMJ thinking it's all the same, and it isn't.
Some 9mm loads are cheaper than others, some 9mm loads are cheaper than other calibers. Are they enough cheaper so that it really matters?? Not to me, but then, I handload.
44AMP, VERY good point! Cost. Premium high velocity SD ammo is tested and discussed, then the newbie or price conscious (including some who should know better), buy the cheap target grade ammo. Sometimes the lowest price isn't the best Value, especially when it comes to hunting or self defense ammunition.
Last edited:
Well, at the range, both cartridges deliver more than enough energy downrange to punch holes in the targets and the "damage" to the target looks like a ragged edge round hole in both cases. So, yes, I would have to say that at the range, the 9mm and 357 magnum are equally effective in putting 9mm diameter round holes in paper.
Whether any of that has any relevance to the world outside the range is entirely dependent upon the circumstances under which the particular cartridge and associated gun are to be used.
- Status