9mm vs .357mag

Socrates I get 1204 fps out of my 360PD with Corbons 125 grain HP's.
brassfetcher got these results with:

Quote:
Cartridge : 9x19mm Luger Speer 124gr +P Gold Dot JHP (Part # 23617)

Firearm : Glock 26 (3.5" barrel length)

Block Calibration : All depths corrected (From 11.2cm @ 599 ft/sec)

Shot 1 - Impacted at 1215 ft/sec, penetrated to 14.3" and was recovered at 0.502" average diameter.

Shot 2 - Impacted at 1196 ft/sec, penetrated to 14.4" and was recovered at 0.509" average diameter.

Shot 3 - Impacted at 1218 ft/sec, penetrated to 14.3" and was recovered at 0.514" average diameter.

Shot 4 - Impacted at 1216 ft/sec, penetrated to 14.4" and was recovered at 0.494" average diameter.

Shot 5 - Impacted at 1216 ft/sec, penetrated to 14.4" and was recovered at 0.503" average diameter.

Do note these gello penetration and expansion measurements were through four layers of loosely-layered denim and not bare gelatin.
 
Last edited:
Here's an interesting site I'm probably the last one to see. Some of the .357 Mag. velocities seem a little slow in the shorter barrel lengths, but what do I know?

The reason that the velocities probably seemed low is that the shooting was done from a TC Encore rather than a revolver and the barrel length was probably mesured differently. My guess is that the chamber was counted in the barrel length of the encore wheras it is not counted on a revolver. Thusly, I'd think that the velocity of the 3" encore barrel would be more analagous to that from a 2" revolver.
 
Well the mag can hold more powder, or more lead, or both, as compared to the 9MM. The 9MM is a comprimise. All autoloader rounds are sort of a comprimise to be a convenient size and shape to function in a reasonably sized automatic pistol mechanism. They are meant to be alot in a small package. So they are full of powder, often, and the size or weight of the bullet is limited due to case capacity. If a given auto pistol round seems insufficient, then you have to just go with something bigger and better. If you want a pocket sized gun, you gotta use ammo to fit. Sure, alot of autopistol rounds are adapted to carbines, that is more useful for accuracy versus any increase in power. I think modern bullet design is pushing something like the 9MM to it's max practical potential. So if the premium loads in current 9MM do not seem good enough to you, I guess you gotta go with more powerful auto or revolver rounds. I don't think ammo makers are holding back on you, there is never gonna be a 9MM round that shoots a standard bullet at say, 1600 fps within normal pressure limits. Maybe someday a breakthru in propellant technology will take place in some lab, but for now, either it works for you or you get something bigger.
 
I think so too. In .357 magnum, The 3" is closer to the 1204 fps Corbon 125 grain load then the 2" listing, by a lot. 1257 fps from 3", 900 something for the 2". Keep in mind mine is actually a 1 7/8"
S&@ 360PD. So yes, I think looking at the 3" results and taking a little off makes the most sense.
 
I've shot 357 mag for 30+ years and in the last 10 years or so have come to realize that as a SD round I prefer the 9mm. Even if the 357 is getting 200 fps more velocity that advantage does not make up for the quieter, easier shooting, lighter 9mm pistols.

The 357 has its place as an outdoorsmans gun where the heavier bullets and long range accuracy can be an advantage.
 
A fully loaded .357 out of a carbine is nothing to sneeze at. Kinda fun to shoot that way too. I would not give you a pfft for a 9MM carbine though. Might be usable for tactics in a SMG, but one shot at a time, might as well go with the magnum.
 
A fully loaded .357 out of a carbine is nothing to sneeze at.

+1

Energy-wise it's actually very close to (if not better than) 5.56x45mm at close range, only it has 2-3 times the lead and makes a bigger hole. 5.56mm pulls ahead down range thanks to it's more efficient bullet design, but I think a longarm in .357 Magnum has some serious potential for home defense.
 
Webleymkv said:

The reason that the velocities probably seemed low is that the shooting was done from a TC Encore rather than a revolver and the barrel length was probably mesured differently. My guess is that the chamber was counted in the barrel length of the encore wheras it is not counted on a revolver. Thusly, I'd think that the velocity of the 3" encore barrel would be more analagous to that from a 2" revolver.

Indeed. As we say right on the site:

In order to get consistent results, we opted to use a platform which would accommodate barrels of any caliber - a Thompson/Center Encore No. 1842. A gunsmith was commissioned to create 11 barrels (calibers tested such as .38 special/.357 magnum used only one barrel) which would each fit into a single housing, yet allow us to chop the barrels easily. This means that we could directly compare calibers regardless of mechanical issues (such as whether there was energy loss due to a cylinder gap or activating an extractor) and as such constitutes an 'ideal' performance. One note: in every case with the T/C Encore the length of the barrel was measured from the end of the barrel back to the breech face. This is how semi-auto pistols are measured, but revolvers are measured as the length of the barrel in front of the cylinder gap. Take this into consideration when comparing calibers using our numbers.

But I think we'll need to post that on the "results" page, to help others avoid confusion.

Anyway, Hi to all here at TFL again - been a couple of years since I hung out, and then under a different handle. Got sucked into a couple of other forums for a while - you know how it is.

Cheers!

Jim Downey
 
Welcome back, Jim, and thanks for the great site! Sorry you had to do all that shooting to put it together...:D
 
Webleymkv said:


Quote:
The reason that the velocities probably seemed low is that the shooting was done from a TC Encore rather than a revolver and the barrel length was probably mesured differently. My guess is that the chamber was counted in the barrel length of the encore wheras it is not counted on a revolver. Thusly, I'd think that the velocity of the 3" encore barrel would be more analagous to that from a 2" revolver.

Indeed. As we say right on the site:

Sorry, I must have missed that:o
 
Thanks, Dave - it was rough. :D We're getting geared up to do additional tests on .327 Magnum, .41 Magnum, and 10mm here next month.

Webleymkv, no worries - I think we need to also post that information on the "results" page directly, if not on each of the individual caliber pages, because this isn't the first time some confusion has come up about what we were measuring.

Cheers!

Jim D.
 
Thanks, everyone, for the reminder to get our site corrected. We'd meant to do that weeks ago, and it fell through the cracks. You'll now find that note about how the measurements were made on each of the individual caliber results pages. That should help settle some questions folks have.

Cheers!

Jim Downey
 
Back
Top