Newbie tried to school me on the .357 mag vs .45acp

44 amp, i have shot plenty of hot and heavy loads out of my tiny sp101. it hurts but it's doable. doable over and over again in a single session without harm to my hand or gun. certain handloads with 125 grain bullets have come out of my 3 inch barrel doing around 1400 fps according to 2 different chronos. they feel like you just caught a swinging bat with your hands but it doesn't damage anything. i would go hotter and heavier but i dunno if my hand is up to it.
 
Anyone can make an argument one way or the other. The thing that is important is that you choose the gun and the caliber that you are the most comfortable with and forgrt about what is "best". You pick what you like and forget the rest. For the record, I prefer a revolver, and my caliber happens to be the .357.
 
OMG! Update! Last night at work this same guy told me that he thought that his High Point .45acp was a muche better gun than my Ruger P95. Due to the fact that if anything that ever went wrong with it (the Hi Point) it would be repaired free of charge no questions asked. Also he prided his Hi Point .45 and even carried it on duty while work ing for the LaGrange PD in West GA. What a giggle I had. Sniffing too much glue at work I think....
 
Nef,

Weither to get the .45 or .357 really depends on more than the cartridge they use.

Let's take size. Is this a carry gun or just a house gun?


If carry, size and weight will matter for both practical concelment and comfort (yes a large HEAVY guns is a real drag to carry for many hours.)

If it's a house gun, hey either one will do great.

Can you shoot DA very well? The GP will almost require you to shoot DA every shot if you have to shoot in a hurry and the pull is not light at all. The Ruger .45 will be of a more consistant lighter trigger.

Can you reload a revolver quickly without looking at the cylinder (or be willing to practice that with a speed loader?) If not the simi-auto may be the way to go.

Anyway, how about going to a range that has both and shooting them. Either one has plenty of power for self defense.

Deaf
 
When faced with these questions the answer is always ".45ACP" :cool:

Now the long answer to justify the short answer. Both have a proven track record and are great choices. The real difference ( in my opinion ) has to do with " shootability". Real ammo in a K/L or J sized gun can be nasty to fire. Recoil, flash, follow up...the whole works. .45 in a carry sized gun is no pussycat but is much easier on the shooter in my opinion. Obviously, your best choice is a 1911 ;) but if that's not your cup of tea than that Ruger will be fine. Personally I like the Springfield XDc in a non-1911 for carry but that's just me. Buy what you like and ignore all the rest of us.

And for those carrying .357 Magnum compacts, no disrespect to your choice intended. If you have taken the time to master it and shoot it well, more power to you.
 
I agree with Straightshooter629. The most important thing to decide between these 2 calibres is: which one do you shoot the best?

Perhaps trying out a gun in each calibre from friends or a range with a rental counter would be the wisest move. The .357 Magnum and the .45 ACP are well established as adequate defensive rounds. Beyond that, the choice of platform from whence to launch your bullets is the next consideration. Since the defining factor in a defensive handgun shooting is going to be shot placement, it is important that you be able to place the bullets where you intend for them to go. If you 'test drive' guns in both loadings you would be better able to determine which one is best for you. It might be the opposite of what's best for me, but that doesn't matter.
 
I think I have found a better way to end the caliber war between 9mm / 357 and the 45 acp.

Im simply going to upgrade one of my 45's with a 460 Rowland kit or maybe a custom job and ta da my 45 auto wins!!!!!!! :D
 
Last edited:
More than likely this arguement will go on till hell freezes over. I've had both, the .357 mag was a Ruger Security Six 6" an outstanding weapon, loved it but I wanted a 44 mag so it got traded off. I owned a Colt Light Weight Commander that was extreamly finicky about bullet types in feeding even with a feed ramp rework, got rid of it. My brother-in-law had a Colt 1911-A1 that was incrediably accurate for as worn as it was. I happen to love 1911 style weapons, especially Kimber, Para Ord. and Springfield, the only reason I didn't go that route for CCW was that at the time I got my CCW license 45 ACP ammo just wasn't available anywhere near where I live but 40 S&W ammo was always on the shelves, probably due to most all LE's in the area using that caliber. At the same time .38 spl/.357 mag ammo was no where to be found. We live within 80 miles of northern California and a bunch of people both here in Oregon and from California were stripping the shelves of any of the popular caliber ammos. People actually would wait outside of sporting goods stores and rush the ammo department when the store opened, kind of like Black Friday for Christmas. All I can say about .357 mag is that it's a great BG stopper but the blast is fierce, then again so are full loads in my .44 mag.
 
I'm sort of surprised the issue of bullets hasn't been brought up. Today everything is foot pounds of energy at a certain distance. It's a good measure but not the whole story. Would I rather have a 357 Magnum with a flat SCW or a military "Ball" 45 ACP? Well I guess in that case I'd opt for the 357 Magnum but what about some of the better 45ACP bullets? Well then that changes a lot of things- if you have to shoot fast there is a good trigger on a 1911 versus double action shooting on a 357 Magnum revolver- in that case, I'd go with the 45ACP with better bullets.
On taking out tanks, I suppose it was sort of a stunt but always worth a try, I had a couple of parental figures who had fought in WWII tell me infantry was trained to aim for the thin slit in the tank that the driver peered out and every now and then it worked. They were also instructed on how to use rifles against aircraft. To me it seems diving for cover was the better option but the Army must have figured it was worth the potential loss of infantry troops if they advocated it.
 
I love the movies when someone makes a real good shot! bighead's recent post made me think of that:

many, many, many examples but two of them are "Joe Kidd" with clint eastwood's shot & much more recent matt damon in the remake of "True Grit"
 
Come on, we all know Patton knocked down a fighter bomber with a 357 super in Africa, right? HAHA.

In all seriousness you probably could have knocked down a WWII plane flying low with a handgun though. For strafing runs they might only be 50 feet above you. They weren't exactly A-10s. THIN aluminum skins, right? Very possible to hit the pilot even from below. Fuel stored in the wings anywhere close to the on board guns?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top