Trying to Clear up the 45 ACP is equal to the .357 Magnum--myth or fact????

Webleymkv:

I agree. I did have a Charter Arms bulldog in 44 special, and, I shot it to pieces using low range 44 magnum loads. I LOVED sending 240 grain big, fat HPS down range at around 950 fps. Gun didn't like it, and, never found, or made one that would.

They also don't make 12 0z guns in those calibers, probably a blessing from God.

However, they do make Glock 39's, a 200 grain bullet, in 45 caliber, at 950 fps, and, the guns under 25 oz. I'll probably end up picking one up, or a Glock 30 one of these days. Don't really know why. Maybe because they don't make Glocks with 15 pound, S&@ 80 grit sandpaper triggers...;)

One final point. The .357's don't get the benefit of heavy bullet weight holding the
powder charge in place long enough to get max velocity out of a snub. Seems to occur about 260 grains and up, at least in 45/454. You end up with a snubby that actually has most of it's power, from a short barrel. I've never really tried that with 260 grain bullets in 45 ACP, but, it might be real intresting to see if it occurs at that level...
 
However, they do make Glock 39's, a 200 grain bullet, in 45 caliber, at 950 fps, and, the guns under 25 oz. I'll probably end up picking one up, or a Glock 30 one of these days. Don't really know why. Maybe because they don't make Glocks with 15 pound, S&@ 80 grit sandpaper triggers...
Click to expand...

Well, if square plasic is your thing, more the power to you:p. If I were to get a small Glock (which I won't, I have better looking guns that serve my purposes just as well) I'd look into a 29. 10mm=heavy and fast: have your cake and eat it too. FWIW Scandium S&W's seem to have grittier, heavier triggers than steel models. I would guess that this is to help keep people from doubling with them as is common with extremely heavy recoiling revolvers (this problem has already been reported with M500's). My new M21 (<1 year old) has a trigger that is smoother than buttered glass:D.

One final point. The .357's don't get the benefit of heavy bullet weight holding the
powder charge in place long enough to get max velocity out of a snub. Seems to occur about 260 grains and up, at least in 45/454. You end up with a snubby that actually has most of it's power, from a short barrel. I've never really tried that with 260 grain bullets in 45 ACP, but, it might be real intresting to see if it occurs at that level...
Click to expand...

I think this phenomenon may be more relative than you think. 125grn .357's seem to go 200-250fps slower from 2-3" barrels than their listed velocities from 4" tubes. 158's only seem to go ~100fps slower. Granted I'm not sure exactly what the advertised velocity of the Black Talons shown in the test I posted was, but Remington, Federal, and Winchester's current 180grn loadings are only 50-100fps faster from 6-8 3/8" barrels.
 
There is a HUGE difference in 357 between 2" barrel and 3" barrel velocities:
I use Tim Sundles tests at buffalbore for .357:
Item 19E/20—158gr. Speer Uni-core, (Gold Dot) hollow cavity, bullet @ 1,100fps from a 2.5 inch barrel. It is designed to mushroom, yet hold together and penetrate deeply—roughly 13 to 15 inches in human tissue.

S&W mod. 340PD 1-7/8 inch barrel—1,015 fps (361 ft. lbs.)
S&W mod. 66 2-½-inch barrel—1,097 fps (422 ft. lbs.)
S&W mod. 65 3-inch barrel—1,172 fps (481 ft. lbs.)
S&W Mt. Gun 4-inch barrel—1,232 fps (532 ft. lbs.)
Colt Python 6-inch barrel—1,198 fps (503 ft. lbs.)

Item 19F/20—140gr. Sierra JHC bullet (jacketed hollow cavity) @ 1,150 fps from a 2.5 inch barreled S&W mod. 66. Designed to mushroom and penetrate deeply—roughly 12 to 14 inches in human tissue.

S&W mod. 340PD 1-7/8 inch barrel—1,088 fps (368 ft. lbs.)
S&W mod. 66 2.5 inch barrel—1,156 fps (415 ft. lbs.)
S&W mod. 65 3 inch barrel—1,246 fps (483 ft. lbs.)
S&W Mt. Gun 4 inch barrel—1,321 fps (542 ft. lbs.)
Colt Python 6 inch barrel—1,286 fps (514 ft. lbs.)

Item 19G/20—125gr. Speer Unicore (Gold Dot) bullet @ 1,225 fps from a 2.5 inch S&W mod. 66 barrel. Designed to mushroom violently, yet hold together and penetrate deeply—roughly 12 to 14 inches in human tissue.

S&W mod. 340PD 1-7/8 inch barrel— 1,109 fps (341 ft. lbs.)
S&W mod. 66 2-½-inch barrels—1,225 fps (416 ft. lbs.)
S&W mod. 65 3-inch barrels— 1,322 fps (485 ft. lbs.)
S&W Mt. Gun 4-inch barrel— 1,445 fps (579 ft. lbs.)
Colt Python 6-inch barrel— 1,388 fps (535 ft. lbs.)
Click to expand...

IIRC, if you check these figures you get a real hefty drop going to the 1 7/8" barrel. 3" barrel really makes the most sense in 357.

Jack Huntington built, and I test fired a couple guns, one in 454 before the Alaskan was made, and another in his .500 JRH. The .500 JRH standard loadings, 440 grain at 950 fps, and 430 grain at 1350 fps, burned all of the powder out of a 4" barrel, and just about all of it out of a 2" barrel. This snub fired the loads about 50 fps slower then the stock speeds, or about 900 and 1300. Also, the rounds had no added benefit from a 16" David Clay rifle, also going through the chrono at the same rated speeds, 950 and 1350 fps.

Here's pics of the guns fired:

SRH500cylinder.jpg

SRH500.jpg

500lever.jpg

BFR500vs.jpg


We found similar lack of speed drop in certain relatively heavy loads in the 454 SuperStreetHawk Jack built for a guy in Oakland. He was getting 454 velocities, with heavy bullets...
The 29 appeals to me, but, if I'm getting that size, I'll stay with 45, and go with the 30. Set it up for 45 Super, and be a happy camper.

If I need a very small block, I'll get the 39, someday. Blocks are the only guns that convince me not to buy them, everytime I think how much they cost, and what I'm getting. S*@ too.
 
There is a HUGE difference in 357 between 2" barrel and 3" barrel velocities:
I use Tim Sundles tests at buffalbore for .357:
Click to expand...

Socrates, the loads you list are, according to Buffalobore, specifically tailored to short barrels. I suspect that they do this by using a relatively fast burning powder and that the majority of it is burned up in the first 3" of barrel which would explain the relatively small velocity difference between 3" and 4". With the more traditional .357 loads using slower burning powders, there's typically a bigger difference between 3" and 4" than between 2" and 3". In the June 2006 issue of Gunworld there is an article entitled "Creating a Custom Combat Revolver," in it the author compares the velocity differences of five different loads from Federal, Winchester, and Hornady in a 4" S&W M681, a 3" M65, and a 2" M649. The velocity difference between 3 and 4" is ranges from 45-105fps while the difference between 2 and 3" is only 22-30fps.

Blocks are the only guns that convince me not to buy them, everytime I think how much they cost, and what I'm getting. S*@ too.
Click to expand...

If you're wanting a small .45, why not look into a Colt Defender or even keep an eye on the used market for a Star Firestar.
 
If you're wanting a small .45, why not look into a Colt Defender or even keep an eye on the used market for a Star Firestar.
Click to expand...

My friend and gunsmith worked for Colt for 9 years. He told me to dump my Ultra Carry II, even though it worked great, because shortening the design creates a lack of tolerances.
I mentioned the Defender and the conversation became littered with words like 'junk', garbage, and similar opinions of the quality of work that went into the Defenders.

I would like to get a Defender, then put a Commander slide on it, since that's about the only way I'll get a CCO in Kali, unless I win the lottery, and, then it's starting with a Kimber :barf:. 2 1200 dollars, and reworking it.

Stars you can't get parts for, and the metal they use won't stand up to the amount of shooting I like to do. If I decide to buy another, I might grab a Dan Wesson Bobtail,
or a Detonics Mark VI, though I wasn't thrilled not having a grip safety...
 
Seems to me that I saw a write up in a gun magazine a couple years ago about an Officer's Model sized Springfield in .45 GAP. Perhaps that would be one way to go. The Para Ordinance Warthog may be another option to explore. Finally, I don't know how you feel about Taurus, but I know you can occasionally find their 455 .45 ACP snub revolvers on the used market (I'd go for a steel model given your bad experience with exotic materials). I had a 445 in .44 Special and could pocket carry it (although it would've been easier with some wooden grips and a mika pocket holster).
 
Last edited:
different hammers

Cut to chase: For shooting people it is very hard for me to ignore the demonstrated rapid-acting effectiveness of a high-speed .355--.357" 125g JHP.
Regardless of launch platform or case holding it.
Regardless of peripheral or extremity hits.
Regardless.......

Lotsa poop and numbers and opnions and names and history mentioned, some true (some not).

It still boils down to this: "A sufficiently powerful shot delivered to an appropriate place in time."



Me? I don't care as much about what's loaded in my guns for people-shooting. Only care a little. Care more about "...appropriate place..." and more importantly, "...in time..."


I wear 'em all.
Not at once.
 
it has been suggested

No bullet is 'magic', in that I expect no single bullet to be the 'ender' (history suggests this possibility probable).

I, instead, expect to empty my gun in panic (again, history suggests this possibility probable).

I 'train' to rapidly deliver aimed powerful shots, but I recognize history teaches panic and unloading happen with great regularity.

Notice nowhere is 'cartridge' or 'bullet weight' or 'energy' mentioned.
That won't matter if things devolve to shots fired.....Sufficient-to-the-specific-job-at-hand 'power'; appropriate-to-'target' placement.
In time.

Yes, better bullets and cartridges exist, and I may even have them with me, but still what matters most are those three points.
Accuracy, power, speed. Even if you're just throwing rocks....




My favorite bullet is my Subaru.
 
Interesting thread.

I especially enjoyed the nostalgic parts of it.

I miss reloading. Grew up doing it. Just haven't indulged in it for more than 20 years.

Oh yeah, the thread topic ...

.357 Magnum & .45 ACP?

Good handgun calibers, both of them.

I own more pistols and revolvers chambered in .45 ACP than I do .357 Magnum, but that's because I've been remiss and have allowed my .357 Magnum revolver collection to dwindle over the years. Time to rebuild it, I'm thinking.

I've carried both calibers as issued service weapons and as personally-owned off-duty weapons. I'd have no problems carrying a .357 Magnum revolver on-duty again, although I imagine that would raise a number of eyebrows and cause sputtering about the necessity of 'high capacity' weapons in LE work ... (My present issued .45 pistol has 7+1 capacity, BTW. ;) ).

Taking a 2 1/2" M66 to the range a while back and running an assortment of various Magnum loads of different bullet weights through it, from 5-50 yards, reminded me of just how much I used to enjoy carrying .357 Magnum revolvers on & off-duty, and doing a lot of practicing with them as a young cop. Having grown up learning to shoot .357, .41 & .44 Magnum revolvers gave me an appreciation for learning to shoot them controllably and accurately.

I like the versatility of the .357 Magnum cartridge and the variety of the revolvers in which its been chambered.

I like the balance and heft of a nicely done 1911 pistol, especially in Commander & full-size, and prefer the heavier 230gr loads ... although I used to carry the early CCI 200gr JHP loads and the Remington 185gr JHP +P loads for a while.

I like the medium-bore .357 Magnum as a lightweight 'backwoods' defensive sidearm ... but prefer one of my .44 Magnums (or a short-barreled Blackhawk Convertible with the .45 Colt cylinder loaded with suitable handloads) for toting around in backwoods areas where dangerous, heavier skinned animals may present a potential threat.

There are a number of 'heavier' caliber, 'more powerful' revolvers to be found on the custom & factory market nowadays, to be sure. I just have little interest in owning them or doing a lot of frequent shooting with them. Shooting .454 Casull and S&W .500 Magnum sort of goes beyond what I find enjoyable.
 
I 'd still love to see a 357 in a auto.I bet they sell like hot cakes! There must
be an issue with this caliber being in an auto else it would have been there long ago.I see they keep coming out with new caliber like the 327.I wonder how long it will take before this is accepted or it falls by the wayside.
 
I've seen deer hit by both .357s and .45s . . . not enough to be conclusive, but the .357 appeared to do more damage and was more effective in downing the animal.

Other ballistic testing - admittedly nonscientific, in things like boards, wet newspapers, etc. - strongly suggests to me that the .357 has more terminal effect.

The .45 is no slouch - I sometimes carry one myself - but IMHO the .45s "manstopper" mythos started in the Philippines vs. Moros (when the .45 in question was actually the .45 LC, not ACP) and was greatly advanced by Jeff Cooper, a proponent of the "Hatcher Scale" of relative stopping power, and his own "short form" modification. After seeing some .45 ACP loads that "scored" well on both the Hatcher and Cooper scales literally bounce off of wood posts . . . I stopped believing the .45 was akin to the hammer of Thor.
 
Having never been shot and never shot anyone, from what I can understand, a .45 hollow point delivers a hard punch in the flesh of the agressor, which makes him temporarily inoperable for a couple of minutes. He will come around and can call an ambulance for himself. A .357 magnum hollow point at magnum velocities creates a harder punch, and deeper in the body. He never comes around because he bleeds to death from the huge internal damage.
 
true understanding

Bullet performance is ALWAYS ONLY an assumption.

Until afterwards......



(the prior post has some dubious conclusions in it; no disrespect intended)
 
FASTBOLT, do you know . . .

How are the Glock-31, Glock-32, and Glock-33, all in the .357ACP caliber, selling?? Capacity of up to 17 rds. in these new models. Haven't seen one of them yet, but would think of one as a nice alternative to carrying a full-sized Glock-21 all day.
 
FASTBOLT, do you know . . .
How are the Glock-31, Glock-32, and Glock-33, all in the .357ACP caliber, selling??
Click to expand...

I haven't asked since about 4 years ago. Dunno.

Back then when I asked I was told by someone who works for Glock that they were making approx 1 gun chambered in .357SIG for every 2,500 guns chambered in all other calibers.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the introduction of the newer .45GAP models and the release of "SF" models in the G20/21/29/30 lines might have changed things a bit.
 
Last edited:
If you shoot a human being with either a .357 or .45 round and they keep coming at you like nothing happened, the caliber you are using is the least of your worries.
 
i am no expert but i liken this debate to another concerning caliber size. i am a hunter and in my hunting deer and larger game i like the heavier slower moving bullets in cover and close range stuff. i like the lighter faster bullets for open long range shooting. that said i carry a 357 over a 1911 for one simple fact. the range of a 45 is diminshed the farther out you get. the larger heavier bullet drops faster and looses energy faster. i love the 1911 and it was my favorite side arm in the Army. i stopped carrying an auto and started carrying a revolver in 357 after a series of shootings occured in the news taking place in very open public areas were i felt if i had been there and needed to try to take a BG at distances over 50yds i would rather have a capable weapon.
 
the range of a 45 is diminshed the farther out you get.
Click to expand...

That "logic" is simply unsupported by the ballistic facts. http://www.federalpremium.com/products/details/handgun.aspx?id=88

A 45 ACP gun sighted in at 25 yards will only drop 2" at 50 yards. So the trajectory is a non-issue.

Furthermore, the energy of a 45 at the muzzle is about 400 ft-lbs. At 50 yards, it is about 375 ft-lbs. Your target won't know the difference between 375 and 400.

There are reasonable arguments for choosing .357 over .45 ACP. But "range" simply is not one of them. The impact of range simply is a non-issue at any reasonable handgun range. Pick the handgun that you shoot the best, can conceal, and is an acceptable caliber (.38 Spcl or better). Any differences beyond that are second order effects far less important than shot placement.
 
I am not a scientist but . . .

force = mass * acceleration

The amount of force a bullet has is going to depend on its size and speed when it hits it target. As we all know the speed is going to depend on the muzzle velocity and its position in the trajectory, so on and so forth.

Also, punch a plastic bag or a paper towel, then punch a solid object. Don't try to hurt yourself, obviously. The point is that you can only hit a object as hard as it can hit you. Bone hits harder then human tissue so in theory hitting bone will cause more damage. Bones also have arteries and nerves attached them. Also, it is also harder to treat a shoulder/armpit gsw then an extremity gsw. As for a .357 severing an extremity I wouldn't believe it but anything is possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top