TexasCHLforum.com

MaduroBU wrote:

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.

Never let it be said that I can’t admit when I’ve been wrong. I totally forgot about the additional length of the cylinder, and didn’t take that into account. I’m sure that Paul Harrell didn’t either, because upon reflection, it is a pretty obvious error.

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

On Paul Harrell’s YouTube channel, he has a couple of good videos, one comparing 9mm to .40 S&W, and another comparing .40 S&W to .45 ACP. The results were instructive.


9mm vs .40 S&W:
https://youtu.be/LTTDgZZZFa0

.40 S&W vs .45 ACP:
https://youtu.be/uaKiPRcWX90

His conclusion regarding 9mm vs .40 S&W is that, even with modern bullet designs, the .40 S&W is more powerful and has better penetration than the 9mm. My personal perception is that, yes this is true, but it’s not enough of a difference in my mind to make me feel undergunned carrying a 9mm, or to make me want to rush out and buy a .40. For instance, the difference between those two is not nearly as significant as would be the difference between 9x19mm and .380 ACP (see below). However, the performance difference between .40 S&W and .45 ACP is negligible; and is much more dependent on things like cartridge/bullet choice than anything else. And speaking for myself, since I already own five pistols chambered in .45 ACP, I still don’t need to rush out and buy a .40 cal.

BTW, Harrell also has a.380 vs 9x19mm comparison using the Ruger LCP (.380) against the Ruger LC9 (9mm) - two very similar pistols from the same manufacturer. In that video, the 9x19 has a very CLEAR advantage over the .380 ACP.
https://youtu.be/8x00CsP9coM

Not meaning to knock anyone’s choices here....including anyone whose primary carry choice is a .380, if that’s what works for you. But it seems very clear to me that 9x19mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP exist on a tier above that of .380 ACP. The .380 is a good choice if that’s what it takes to make you actually carry the gun instead of leaving it at home; but in comparing the 4 cartridges, .45 and .40 are tied for first place with 9x19mm in a fairly close 2nd; but the .380 is a distant third place in terms of personal protection. But as I said, the .380 in your pocket beats the .45 you left at home.

That said, the .357 magnum in my pocket beats your pocket .380 or pocket 9mm hands down, by a large margin:
https://youtu.be/CD2t_qG9dls

I hope you guys get as much out of these comparisons as I did. But as always, caliber and platform choice is a very individual preference, and what works for one may not work for another, let alone everyone else.

cyphertext wrote:Heck, I still have a .357 revolver that I enjoy shooting.

Well yeah! A .357 revolver is like a fine wine or well-aged bourbon.....it needs no justification. Plus, it WILL knock the bejabbers out of whatever you shoot with it.......including sometimes, your hand.

I remember a thread that I read many years ago on another firearm related forum, and the OP had asked if anyone actually knew what it was like to be shot with a .357. There were a number of answers quoting ballistics and statistics, or telling stories about other people having been shot with one; but only ONE person answered what it was like to BE shot with one. I don’t remember his exact words, but they were to the effect of: “when a .357 hit me in the stomach, it was like someone had violently yanked the rug out from under me, and I was down before I knew what hit me. It was like getting hit by a truck.” I suppose that there are other calibers can produce similar results, but the .357 is no joke.

Plus, you can shoot .38 in them if you want.

I have two of them - both snubbie J-frames, one SS, and one Scandium - and I plan to acquire a 4” GP100 some day.

.357 revolvers are forever.

LeonCarr wrote:Is it dead?

Not yet. IME 9mms are easier and cheaper to shoot, and IME the .40 has more recoil/muzzle flip than a .45 in a similar sized handgun. This may be due the .40 running at almost twice the pressure of the .45.

IMO the .40 is a good cartridge that provides optimum antipersonnel ballistics from a handgun, and you really don't hear anything about the .40 failing to work as designed with JHP ammunition and proper shot placement.

You could do a whole lot worse than the .40 as your primary handgun.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

Not trying to be flippant, but that could just as easily be said about 9mm or .45 ACP ..... with good JHP and shot placement, they work as designed. I don’t think that .40 S&W is going to go away......but it is fading. IMHO, it will end up like .45 GAP and .357 Sig - good cartridges that have a dedicated following, but no longer capturing a large market share. What others have said is true....that .40 is a compromise cartridge, and the need for that compromise disappeared with (A) improvements in the terminal ballistics of 9mm, and (B) the sunsetting of the Clinton AWB.

My own experience with .40 ended with me selling the one .40 cal pistol I owned several years ago. It was a great pistol (HK USP Compact), but I never did shoot .40 as well as I did either .45 ACP or 9mm. I had a wonder-nine in the collection at the time (Glock 19), so I wasn’t capacity-starved, and I had several .45s, so I wasn’t caliber-starved. For me, the .40 didn’t really fit a niche. That USPc was a wonderful gun, and if I’d had the wisdom to buy it in .45 or 9mm instead of .40, I’d still own it today; but I couldn’t justify keeping it if I wasn’t going to shoot it, and selling it paid for something else (M&P45 Full Size). Since then, I have gravitated toward carrying 9mms pretty much exclusively. I still have the .45s because they are fun to shoot - especially when suppressed - but my 9mms are lighter all the way around than the .45s, have greater capacity, and are just plain easier to carry than their .45 equivalents.

Edited to add..... what I said above about .45 GAP is possibly wrong. It may actually disappear, for the simple reason that it answered a question that nobody was asking.

Carry on......