I have been studying the data at www.ammolab.com and am really surprised to see the 9mm performing as well as the 45 and the 357sig with regard to expansion and penetration. If the data is reliable, it is indeed hard to beat the 9mm given reduced recoil, cost, and capacity. If the data is reliable, how do you sell the 45 and especially the 357 sig? hangfarr.
9mm vs 45 vs 357sig?
- Thread starter hangfarr
- Start date
You're heard the rule before:
Carry the hardest hitting most potent round you can accurately shoot.
Only the 357 sig round delivers 500 fpe with great expansion and penetration.
That's why my primary carry guns are in 357 sig, G32 and a G33.
If it's good enough to protect GW, sure it's fine for me.
Nothing wrong with 9mm, 40SW, or 45 ACP, its just that reloaders appreciate ballistics more than most.
All should stop a BG.
Carry the hardest hitting most potent round you can accurately shoot.
Only the 357 sig round delivers 500 fpe with great expansion and penetration.
That's why my primary carry guns are in 357 sig, G32 and a G33.
If it's good enough to protect GW, sure it's fine for me.
Nothing wrong with 9mm, 40SW, or 45 ACP, its just that reloaders appreciate ballistics more than most.
All should stop a BG.
The 9mm is the threshold cartridge for self-defense use. It works but I would not drop below it. The best 9mm loads do about as well as the other good calibers like the 357 sig, 40 and 45 ACP. I like the 357 sig over the 9mm because it has more raw power with which to work. I like it over the 45 because it fits in smaller guns that fit my hands and it still gives good performance that rivals a 45 in many areas and exceeds it in some areas. I like the 357 sig more than the 40 because I have found the 357 sig to be about 20% to 50% more accurate depending on the pistols that are compared.
PAT
PAT