9mm vs. .357 magnum-Myth Busted

Status
Not open for further replies.
hdwhit said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sorry, maybe I didn't write that bit well enough. I wasn't implying that 'at the range,' both cartridges performed the same. What I meant was that I've heard this myth while I was at a range, of the 9mm performing as well as .357 magnum in terms of energy delivered. Not how the rounds performed at the range.

Not that it matters, as this thread has apparently gone pretty far afield from my OP. But some of it has been interesting anyway, so maybe it's not all to the bad.

Oh, and .357 magnum SWCs fired from any .357 magnum I've ever fired leave perfectly cut circles in target paper, not ragged holes.
 
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.
Click to expand...
That is most certainly true.

Any one of them involves compromises.

Not too long ago there was an article discussing the idea that a .380ACP might be a better choice than a "micro 9MM". I had a light weight compact 9 that was not easy to fire rapidly with control. I now carry a double column 9 that I do like--for concealed carry.

But I would not choose it for some things. I have a good seven shot stainless steel .357 Magnum revolver with a five inch barrel that I would much prefer to carry in some circumstances if I were still able to get around in the outdoors. But I do not hunt with a handgun.

Everything chambered in .357 Magnum will handle the mid-range loads (1300fps) and some will handle a lot more.
Click to expand...
Yes, but...some who are enamored with the idea of the .357 Magnum cartridge choose revolvers that are so small and light that they cannot shoot them rapidly in controlled fire, and they rarely take them to the range a second time with full Magnum loads.

The choice of firearm is at least every bit as important as the chambering.
 
hdwhit said:
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.
Click to expand...
9mm has been used by the FBI and a whole slew of police units, plus the US Marine Corps. It meets FBI criteria.

.357 magnum does as well.

But we should be careful here. A .357 has more energy on average, yes? but the next step, arguing .357 is superior, implies 9mm is inferior. Following that logic then the argument can naturally be made that .50 caliber is better and therefore the .357 is inferior. If one is going to ONLY use the factor of power as measured by weight and velocity, clearly all persons must use a .50. But again, thats ignoring all the other important factors.

The other, probably much more important issue is that its kind of irrelevant. The vast majority of people choose the semi-auto platform. The .357 magnum is not widely available in the semi-auto platform. Inversely, with limited exception, the 9mm is not a revolver cartridge.

So the .357 guys should go back to picking fights with .38 special shooters and avoiding the manly men that have .454 Casulls. The 9mm dudes and dudettes should focus their attention on the multiple "discussions" about which is better: 9mm or .40 cal.

Me, I'll continue to carry a pocket full of .45 ACPs, in case I am attacked by a bunch of car doors. :)
 
zincwarrior said:
9mm has been used by the FBI and a whole slew of police units, plus the US Marine Corps. It meets FBI criteria.

.357 magnum does as well.

But we should be careful here. A .357 has more energy on average, yes? but the next step, arguing .357 is superior, implies 9mm is inferior. Following that logic then the argument can naturally be made that .50 caliber is better and therefore the .357 is inferior. If one is going to ONLY use the factor of power as measured by weight and velocity, clearly all persons must use a .50. But again, thats ignoring all the other important factors.

The other, probably much more important issue is that its kind of irrelevant. The vast majority of people choose the semi-auto platform. The .357 magnum is not widely available in the semi-auto platform. Inversely, with limited exception, the 9mm is not a revolver cartridge.

So the .357 guys should go back to picking fights with .38 special shooters and avoiding the manly men that have .454 Casulls. The 9mm dudes and dudettes should focus their attention on the multiple "discussions" about which is better: 9mm or .40 cal.

Me, I'll continue to carry a pocket full of .45 ACPs, in case I am attacked by a bunch of car doors. :)
Click to expand...
First, I agree with all of your points. The issue I have with it is that Mr. Harrell never states that the .357 magnum is 'superior' to the 9mm, and neither do I. I still wonder if anyone is actually watching the whole video with the sound on.

The only question being answered is whether the 9mm does in fact perform as well as a .357 magnum on a variety of testing media, some of which are purely for dramatic effect, as he so states.

He never says, "everyone should be carrying a .357 magnum," or anything remotely close to that. He simply attempts to refute the idea that a premium self-defense 9mm +P cartridge can perform on an equal level as a target quality .357 magnum round. And as far as I can tell, he accomplishes his goal. YMMV.
 
Zincwarrior
and Rangerrich,

You both should be banned from this thread

If you two are going to make sense, there's no
place for you here.

Beat it, both of you. :mad:
 
You have to define performance.
Again, what does perform mean? The recoil from a .357 is substantially higher. The effectiveness of a .357 on a human target is subject for debate (as has been had).

Neither were designed for the mediums presented. They were designed for human (9mm and .357) and game (.357).

If the definition of performance is penetration: .357 wins. if the definition is meeting FBI minimums with the lowest recoil, 9mm wins. If the definition is, can this stop a Tiger Tank in a Steven Spielberg movie, then .45 ACP wins ;)
 
UncleEd said:
Zincwarrior
and Rangerrich,

You both should be banned from this thread

If you two are going to make sense, there's no
place for you here.

Beat it, both of you. :mad:
Click to expand...
You know we really haven't explored the most important factor, which one makes me look coolor while I spout awesome one liners...

EDIT: To really throw a monkey wrench in, if all were in revolvers which would be better, .357 mag, 38 special, or 9mm? Let the caliber wars continue!*

* If it were me, I'd pick .357 for revolver, and 9mm for auto, because I'd carry the 357 with as hot as possible rounds for hiking, and carry the 9mm for self defense in semi-auto.
 
In the 70's, the gun rags had articles and men in gun shops debated on which was better, pertaining to "stopping power", a.45 ACP 1911A1 or a 4" double action .357 Magnum revolver. In the 80's, the topic was upgraded to 9MM pistol VS. .357 revolver. Then it was the "high capacity" wondernine 9MM VS. .45 ACP "stopping power" in a Sig 220 or Colt 1911A1 in the late 80's. Then in the early to mid 90's... 9MM VS. .40 SW in polymer framed weapons. Funny thing is, if old Wild Bill was still alive he would laugh at all of us, after his numerous successful gunfights, many of which he was armed with only a brace of .36 caliber cap 'n ball 1851 Colts, which are pretty primitive and weak compared to the powerful modern handguns we debate so strongly about today. My point is, we have it pretty good with our modern arms and ammunition, be it a 9MM, or .45 ACP pistol, or a .357 revolver. I think Wild Bill would consider us all well armed and accuse us of cackeling like a bunch of old hens.
 
Last edited:
mavracer said:
That's neither hydrodynamics or hydrostatics that's aerodynamics.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Actually hydrodynamics and hydrostatics are part of the same continuum mechanics branch (namely, fluid dynamics) as aerodynamics is. They are not separable.
 
Last edited:
zincwarrior said:
You have to define performance.
Again, what does perform mean? The recoil from a .357 is substantially higher. The effectiveness of a .357 on a human target is subject for debate (as has been had).

Neither were designed for the mediums presented. They were designed for human (9mm and .357) and game (.357).

If the definition of performance is penetration: .357 wins. if the definition is meeting FBI minimums with the lowest recoil, 9mm wins. If the definition is, can this stop a Tiger Tank in a Steven Spielberg movie, then .45 ACP wins ;)
Click to expand...
With respect, I don't have to define 'performance,' Mr. Harrell defines it at the beginning of the video.
 
If you set emotions aside, the answers to the subject are rather obvious. And that is illustrated by the video.

As far as the ballistics of the two cartridges go, the 357 is clearly superior to the 9mm. They operate at essentially the same pressure and propel essentially the same diameter bullets, but the 357 case holds more powder and the 357 can propel equal weight bullets to higher velocities.

When you factor in handguns available for the cartridges, and the intended use, the superiority of the 357 cartridge may be erased by, or even lost to, the 9mm depending on what other factors are most important.
 
We all have decided on which caliber handgun we like. All this other stuff with penetration, recoil, etc etc. is Academic. I have 2 favorite hand guns in two different calibers and don't care what anyone else thinks or says.
 
I don't really have strong favorites, enjoying the various characteristics that comes with variety. I think I'll start another thread regarding personal favorites.
 
The video addressed power, only power. Not recoil, not effectiveness and not performance.
I don't care what level of 9x19 you are using the 357 magnum will always have more power.
When used with similar barrel length the 357 will always top the 9mm by a wide margin.

Show me a 9mm that will fire a 140 grain bullet at 1464 fps from a four inch barrel...
 
This thread should be museum mounted. Lots of boards don’t allow caliber wars precisely because it turns into this.

It’s the hand that wields more than the tool in it.

In the military we call handguns “sidearms”, and they’re not much more than a status symbol, because they suck at killing men. They’re what you use when you’re out of ammo, or have desk duty.

There hasn’t been a cop who has killed a lot of men (19) since Jelly Bryce. I don’t think you can anymore. A cop who is known for killing men would get fired today. Bryce would draw on the drop and win by being so fast and putting the shot wherever he wanted. He did it with a .44 Special and a .357 revolver. Just saying. Real dude. Real gunfighter.

The only friends I have who have killed a lot of men did it with a rifle, and if you haven’t been in a lot of firefights and killed a lot of men they’re not going to talk to you. Going hunting with them this weekend!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top