TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:

MaduroBU wrote:The 10mm, 357 magnum, and 357 Sig are in a tier above all other common pistol rounds*. Their main limitation is that they need 5"-6" barrels for the sig and 10mm and 7.5" for the .357 Mag.

Actually, Harrell also has a video comparing .357 Magnum to .357 Sig - the Magnum in a 4” barreled GP100, and the Sig in a 4.25” barreled Glock, and the Magnum load outclasses the Sig load, and by a significant margin. He is careful to emphasize that the Sig is a great cartridge for personal defense, and it is indeed powerful; but it isn’t anywhere near “just as powerful” as a .357 Magnum.

https://youtu.be/p9iuN-JBCXE

Two important points.

1) the revolver barrel is 1.5" longer than the listed length for the sake of comparison. The overall length of the firearm is what matters, and the habit of excluding the cylinder from consideration makes revolvers seem far more potent from a given barrel length than they actually are. For a "same size gun" comparison to a nominal 4" barrel revolver, the auto needs a 5.5" barrel. My P226 x5 with a 5.7" barrel is about 1.5" shorter than a 6" Ruger Security Six.

2) As I pointed out, commercial loads for 10mm, 357 Sig, and 357 Mag are awful. I think that is at least partly due to the tendency to fire them from guns with barrels too short to make use of the extra powder. For a 4" barrel (2.5" nominal for the 357 Mag) all of these calibers produce minimal gains and excessive muzzle blast versus a the 38 sp, 40 S&W or 9mm +p. But when loaded to potential and shot from appropriate barrel lengths, the 357s and 10mm handily outclass those other calibers.

My claim is based on handloads that I loaded, chronographed, and shot through gel. Specifically a 180 grain HDY XTP at 1330 FPS from a Ruger Security Six 6" and a 147 grain HDY XTP at 1425 from a Sig P226 X5 with a 5.7" BarSto barrel. The magnum gives 239k "grain-FPS" while the Sig gives 210k. For energy, the Mag gets 707 ft lbs and the Sig gets 663. A real apples to apples comparison would've used a revolver with a 4" nominal barrel, but I don't have one so the magnum enjoys a slight unfair advantage.

As for the gel, it was my first effort, so it was in no way standardized, but both guns tore through 2 layers of heavy denim, expanded to make 3" wide wound channels and then plowed through 22" of gel. The numbers may not be comparable to standardized gel, but it passed my "no dude/pig/bear is big or bad enough to want this to happen to him" test.

The 10mm, 357 magnum, and 357 Sig are in a tier above all other common pistol rounds*. Their main limitation is that they need 5"-6" barrels for the sig and 10mm and 7.5" for the .357 Mag. Further, factory ammo rarely realizes their potential. I don't load 10mm, but 1330 fps with a 180 grain JHP is my baseline for the magnum and 1400 for a 147 grain JHP from the Sig. I assume that 1150-1200 is doable for the 10mm, but i can't confirm that.

The .45 ACP with 230 grain JHP at 900 FPS can match the above in MOMENTUM, but falls behind in energy. It truly shines in expanded bullet width, with some bullets hitting nearly 1" is width under lab conditions in gel. The .40 with a 200 grain JHP falls in the same category, giving up a little expanded width for 2-3 more rounds in a magazine. The big issue is that the .45 and .40 (as well as the 9mm and .380) all extract most of their velocity potential from a 4" barrel. The energy advantage enjoyed by the 10mm and 357s is not only reduced from a 4" barrel, it is also far less relevant for us.


I have a .40 barrel that ONly serves to get me to major scoring in USPSA, BUT the caliber does have a use.


*Things like the .44 mag and 454 Casull have a purpose more suited to hunting than personal defense, so Ill exclude them for now, but I would definitely consider that were bears my main concern.