[CustomDeluxe]

Hey guys I was wondering if there were any .357 Auto around. I love a .357 but am not much of a revolver fan. If so what are some of the good brands.

[mikeb3185]

i think the desert eagle makes a 357
many manuactures make .357 sig- a nice cartrge by the way

edit:
i am also interested in pistols firing 357 mag

[Croyance]

The .357 Sig is a .357 auto round. It is designed to replicate (in a service gun) the velocity of the 125 grain .357 Magnum from a 4" revolver.

[bigger jon]

to this day i cry for my LAR GRIZZLY i had all the conversions 45acp,45win mag,10mm,and the 357 it shot very very well, this is a pic of it, my friend in the pic used it to take this small hog, i took much larger ones with it but sadly this is the only pic i have of it
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g23/jhunter63/27.jpg

[LoneCoon]

The Coonan (http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg179-e.htm) Pistol is a .357 autoloader, though expensive and apparently the company is out of business.

[jc2]

The .357 Sig is a .357 auto round. It is designed to replicate (in a service gun) the velocity of the 125 grain .357 Magnum from a 4" revolver.
Except it falls a little short, and the 357 SIG JHPs 357 SIG do not perform like the .357 Magnum SJHPs. The 357 SIG also lacks the versatility and range of loads available available to the .357 Magnum (which really shines with heavier bullets). The whole "357" SIG thing is more marketing hype than reality.

[Croyance]

Sure it doesn't have the range of weights. That is not its intent.
But from typical auto barrels of about 4.5" length, give or take, the chrono'ed velocities of the 125 grain loads are the same (sometimes a bit more or less) than the 125 grain .357 magnum.
Given that weight, velocity, and diameter are the same what difference are you seeing? Or what other data do you have?

[jc2]

The 357 SIG's nominal velocity is about 100 fps less the .357 Magnum's nominal velocity. The 357 SIG's JHPs (at least the GDs and Ranger T's) were designed to perform well on FBI protocols--something .357 Magnum SJHPs do not do not do. The penetration/expansion characteristics are different.

[warriorsociologist]

In order of power (for autos):

.357sig (9x21...I believe)
9x23
9x25 Dillon (necked down 10mm case - any 10mm can be converted to this or any of the ones "under" it with a barrel swap...assuming a conversion barrel is made for said pistol)


FWIW, Mike (the owner of Doubletap ammo) lists his 9x25 accordingly:

DoubleTap 9X25 (I think a 6" KKM Glock 20 conversion barrel was used for these):
115gr Gold Dot JHP @ 1800fps
125gr Gold DOt JHP @ 1725fps
147gr Gold Dot JHP @ 1550fps

- that said, I don't see this ammo listed on his website anymore. He may no longer be making it.

[JohnKSa]

Come on, jc.

The question was about .357 Auto. The word magnum was not mentioned in the question and the question specifically directed answers away from revolvers.

Croyance qualified his original comment about the .357 SIG (definitely a commonly available cartridge that could reasonably be called a .357Auto) with a bullet weight so it's redundant to jump into the middle the bullet weight argument when no-one's arguing and the information has already been posted on the thread.

And you know that "chronoed" velocites show the 125 gr loads are pretty much equal in similar firearms. Which means your objection about "nominal velocities" is baseless and intentionally misleading.

Lastly, I'm not sure why you think it's cogent to launch into a topic as esoteric as bullet design and FBI protocol testing results in response to a question as simple as "I was wondering if there were any .357 Auto around." and an inquiry about brands...

[warriorsociologist]

This might be usefull:

[jc2]

Lastly, I'm not sure why you think it's cogent to launch into a topic as esoteric as bullet design and FBI protocol testing results in response to a question as simple as "I was wondering if there were any .357 Auto around." and an inquiry about brands...
Admittedly a little off-topic, but I was asked:
Given that weight, velocity, and diameter are the same what difference are you seeing? Or what other data do you have?

[Croyance]

I think the .357 Magnum velocities you mention are from 6" barrels, which isn't much of a basis for comparison. I'm sure some LEAs issued them, but then I could find or get a longer barreled .357 Sig and get higher velocities too.
Also for SJHP, it seems like most the defensive loads I see on the shelf for .357 Magnums (certainly not all) are also GD and other types made popular in semi-autos.

[jc2]

Nope, a four-inch barrel. Federal, Remington and Winchester still lists their 125-grain SJHP--"don't mess with success," I guess.

[JohnKSa]

Again, arguing about nominal, advertised velocities is pointless given the fact that we all agree that in practice they chrono about the same.

[MCgunner]

The Sig is a marketing ploy that fools a lot of people with its name. It shoots 9mm, not .357 bullets. It'll never replace the .357 afield, though it is a fine defensive caliber, if not that necessary considering all the good calibers for that use that are available and just as good. The .357 magnum is so good afield because of its versatility from .38 wadcutters to 180 grain full house magnums at 750 ft lbs muzzle energy, over 200 ft lbs more than the Sig can muster from a 5" gun with a 125 grain slug designed for humans. Out of 4" barrels you can still expect close to 600 ft lbs with the heavies in .357 magnum. That's a lot of power in a light, easy to carry package.

If you want this sort of ballistics, I know it doesn't have .357 on it, but the 10mm is the way to go. It puts up similar energy levels, can shoot a 200 grain bullet to do it. It is a fine outdoor caliber for service sized autos and is fantastic for self defense, too. I sort of think of it as a little better than the .357, but not up to the .41 magnum.

I'm a revolver guy, though. I see no reason to buy any auto for outdoor use. My revolvers are more accurate than any, but a bullseye tuned auto. Revolvers ain't in with the tacticool crowd, but they sure are with outdoorsmen. Even the old single action is popular.

If you doubt my numbers here, all I can say is I have a chronograph and have tested these loads. These are handloads, of course. I have handloaded all my adult and part of my teen life and I'm 53 years old. But, there are hot factory loads in .357 that, if anything, are HOTTER than what I can handload, or at least their published ballistics are.

[jc2]

I sort of think of it as a little better than the .357, but not up to the .41 magnum.
Actually, "hot" 10mm loads out of Glock 20 barely reach the same energy levels of "hot" factory loads loads out of a four-inch 686. For example:

Box stock Glock 20--DT 200-grain XTP--1250 fps/694 fpe
Box stock four-inch S&W 686--180-grain HCLFN--1375 fps/765 fpe

When you get right down to the brass tacks, the 10mm is autoloader equivalent of the .357 Magnum--nothing more (which is saying a lot).

[MCgunner]

I'm thinkin' my bud was getting about 720 ft lbs out of his IAI Javelina, so that's about right. Only reason I say it's slightly superior (maybe, depends on how you look at it) is it's similar energy, but with up to a 200 grain bullet. Heavier bullets are more desireable for penetration on game. However, your point is well taken. Too, I haven't looked at sectional densities, but the 180 grain .357 is probably pretty close in SD to the 200 grain 10, so I don't know that superior is the right word here, true enough.

Anyway, I ain't swappin' my .357s for 10s. :D I prefer revolvers for my outdoor uses.

edit--

Thought I'd add here that if you are considering the 10 and don't reload, you might wanna look into availability of ammo in your area or you may have to order it. The stuff is hard to find around here. I reload, so don't even care what's out there, but I've heard others say most of the stuff around is pretty mild. I kind of look at the ten as a handloader's cartridge. Sure helps to bring the price down on the stuff, too.

[Dr.Rob]

Not that most of us could afford it but:

"The 357 Auto Mag pushed the 185 grain jacketed bullet at a muzzle velocity of 1600 fps and the 110 grain bullet at over 1900 fps when loaded to maximum performance levels. This is certainly well in excess of anything possible from the 357 Magnum revolver." Source: www.reloadbench.com

Of course you get that kind of heat from nacking down 308 shells to 44 automag length, THEN necking it down to .357.

I don't think any commercial ammo was made for .357 auto mag.

[JohnKSa]

Box stock Glock 20--DT 200-grain XTP--1250 fps/694 fpe
Box stock four-inch S&W 686--180-grain HCLFN--1375 fps/765 fpeI suppose it would be the height of folly to ask why you chose to compare a 180gr .357Magnum load to a 200gr 10mm load?

Say, instead of using this load by Double-Tap with the same bullet weight as the .357 Magnum load you quoted.

10mm DT 180gr. @ 1350fps/ 728 ft/lbs- Glock 20

And I suppose it would be equally foolish for me to ask why the energy number on the .357Magnum loading is inflated?

Here's how the comparison looks with the properly calculated energy figure and matching bullet weights. (Assuming the other numbers for the .357Mag load are correct.)

Box stock Glock 20--10mm DT 180gr. @ 1350fps/ 728.3 fpe
Box stock four-inch S&W 686--.357 Magnum 180-grain HCLFN--1375 fps/755.5 fpe

Since we're into comparisons and since your first comparison demonstrates the 10mm can handle heavy bullets with aplomb, here's another one--just for fun.

10mm DT 215gr WFNGC Hardcast 1225fps/ 717 ft./lbs. - Glock 20
357Mag DT 200gr WFNGC Hardcast 1200fps / 640 ft/lbs. - 4" Ruger GP-100

(BTW, I would have used matching bullet weights, but I couldn't find a .357Mag loading on the DT website with anything heavier than a 200gr bullet.)Actually, "hot" 10mm loads out of Glock 20 barely reach the same energy levels of "hot" factory loads loads out of a four-inch 686.Apparently hot 10mm loads out of the Glock 20 can not only easily reach the same energy levels of hot factory loads out of a four-inch 686, it can even exceed them.

Also interesting that the 180gr and 215gr loadings from Double-Tap exceed the energy figures for the 180gr and 210gr .41Magnum loadings offered by Federal (respectively). It's only the super-heavyweight 250gr Castcore from Federal's .41 Mag offerings that finally pulls away from the 10mm. Of course there are much heavier loadings for the .41Mag out there, but clearly the 10mm can reach and even exceed the performance level of some common .41Mag factory loads.

[jc2]

Of course there are much heavier loadings for the .41Mag out there, but clearly the 10mm can reach and even exceed the performance level of some common .41Mag factory loads.
Sure, if you compare hot 10mm loads to mild .41 Magnum. If you like to compare apples to oranges, John, the .357 Magnum can really smoke the 10mm:

10mm Federal 180-grain Hydra-Shok - 425 fpe
.357 Magnum Buffalo 180-grain HCLFN - 756 fpe

So, if you really want to compare hot loads mild loads, the .357 Magnum clearly blows the 10mm out of water. ;)

It's interesting to note when you start comparing sectional densities (which is actually more important than bullet weights when it comes to penetration in hunting), the 180-grain .357 Magnum bullet has a greater sectional density than either the 200-grain or 215-grain bullet. So, not only does the .357 Magnum deliver more muzzle energy 180-grains than Double Tap does at 180, 200, and 215 grains, it also delivers more sectional density. In other words, you can reasonably expect the Buffalo Bore 180-grain .357 Magnum load to outperform Double Tap's 180-grain, 200-grain and 215-grain loads in the field due its superior ballistics (though, to be technical the differences--which does favour the .357 Magnum--probably really aren't significant). To call the 10mm the ballistic twin of the .357 Magnum might be a little being over generous to the 10mm. :cool:

Hey, John, let's not hi-jack this thread into another .357 Magnum-10mm argument. We both know that in any reasonable comparison of hot 10mm loads to hot .357 Magnum loads there's not enough difference to make difference. The only question really is do you want to get there in an autoloader or a revolver.

[jdmb03]

http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/content/community/gun_inventory/inventory/east_grand_forks/handgun/482231_cooncompact_egf.jsp

[BrennanKG]

jdmb03,

Thanks for the link.
I'd never seen that particular 1911 before.
Interesting'y it's listed as a compact, as well as having a 5" barrel. If it really does have a 5" barrel, a) the frame needed for the 357 must be making the barrel look short, and b) the phrase "compact" have just become much more relative for me.

:)


B.

[jdmb03]

They listed it wrong, it's not a 5". It has a 3.9" barrel.
http://www.dancoonan.com/coonan_357.html

[JohnKSa]

Hey, John, let's not hi-jack this thread into another .357 Magnum-10mm argument.I didn't bring up the 10mm. I was just responding to your comments. If you think it's off topic for this thread then why did you address the subject? I'm willing to bet that your sudden attack of principles won't prevent you from responding...

You get caught inflating .357 energy numbers, comparing 10mm loads with heavier bullets to lighter bullet weight .357 loads and so, OF COURSE, now it's off topic to compare 10mm and .357 on this thread. CLASSIC. :rolleyes: Sure, if you compare hot 10mm loads to mild .41 Magnum.That is a totally bogus accusation, and a pretty bold one for someone who just cherry picked some loads and inflated a number to favor his own argument. Unlike your uncaveated and inflated numbers, I compared Double-Tap's 10mm loadings to Federal's ENTIRE .41Magnum line. Then I was objective enough to point out that which Federal load exceeded the 10mm, and further noted that it was possible to find heavier .41Mag out there. THEN, just to make sure I wasn't misunderstood and that there could be no reasonable accusation of bias or spin, I went so far as to point out that this was a comparison of 10mm to "some common .41Mag factory loads", not an overall face-off of the two cartridges.

Why is it that you can not tolerate even so much as a HINT that the 10mm can match the performance of some factory .41 Mag? Not even when the person who makes the CORRECT and DOCUMENTED observation caveats it out the wazoo to be ABSOLUTELY above board about the comparison and to prevent any possible misunderstanding?To call the 10mm the ballistic twin of the .357 Magnum might be a little being over generous to the 10mm.Oooook... I guess you don't remember posting this? ...the 10mm is autoloader equivalent of the .357 Magnum...

The fact is that the energy and velocity numbers with identical bullet weights are very similar when comparing 10mm to .357Mag. The 10mm even comes out ahead in a few of these comparisons--even comparing HOT loads to HOT loads. That's not a matter of opinion, it's fact. I used the SAME website you did to get my ballistics and all the numbers are still posted there for all to see.

As far as your little tutorial on sectional density, I have two questions...

If you don't think the velocity and energy figures are a valid way to compare cartridges, THEN WHY DID YOU DO IT? It's a little late to decide that velocity and energy are inadequate comparison figures AFTER you tried to bolster your claims using exactly those parameters for comparison.

If sectional density is the key to the puzzle, then why do you discount the sectional density advantage of the 10mm over the .40 S&W? Surely the ability of the 10mm to handle much heavier, higher sectional density bullets must give it a performance advantage.

You're arguing against the 10mm here saying that velocity, energy and sectional density favor the .357Magnum over the 10mm, but on another thread AT THE VERY SAME TIME, you're arguing that velocity, energy and sectional density advantages of the 10mm over the .40 S&W do not translate to a performance advantage.

It seems that the only thing these two arguments have in common is that they both try to cast the 10mm in a poor light...

So, which of the two arguments is the valid one?

(BTW, I have no illusions that you willl come up with a real answer, but I expect your tap-dancing to be entertaining.) ;)

[jc2]

I didn't bring up the 10mm. I was just responding to your comments.
Actually, John, if you had bothered to read the entire thread instead of just what I posted, you would have discovered that I didn't bring up the 10mm either. And yes, it's still off-topic.
Intentionally misleading. I compared Double-Tap's ENTIRE 10mm line to Federal's ENTIRE .41Magnum line.
"Intentionally misleading" is a good description of your post. You chose to compare a boutique manufacturer that made its reputation with hot 10mm loads to a mainstream manufacturer (all of whom tend to be rather conservative in their loads).

If you were realy interested in enlightening instead of misleading, you would have compared all Federal's 10mm offerings (425 fpe) to all its .41 Magnun offering (790 fpe)--or maybe compared DT's hot 10mm loads to Buffalo Bore's hot .41 Magnum loads (but we know how that would turn out which would defeat your purpose).
Why is it that you can not tolerate even so much as a HINT that the 10mm can match the performance of some factory .41 Mag?
Now, see, John, there you go misleading and misstating again. I have said in many difference posts hot 10mm (and .357 Magnum) loads can compare favorably with some low and low-medium .41 Magnum loads--but as my comparison of the Bufflo Bore 180-grain .357 Magnum load to the Federal 180-grain 10mm load illustrated, to compare hot load to low/medium loads is rather meaningless.
The 10mm even comes out ahead in a few of these comparisons--even comparing HOT loads to HOT loads.
A the .357 Magnum comes out ahead in a few of the comparisons as well--that's why I describe them ballistics twins. What one can do, the other can do. The 10mm is autoloader equivalent of the .357 Magnum.
If sectional density is the end-all, be-all, then why do you totally discount the sectional density advantage of the 10mm over the .40 S&W?
John, you are kidding, right? You do know, don't you, that the .40 S&W and 10mm have the same sectional for the same bullet weight? Of course, there is one 10mm load with a 215-grain WFNGC that is not available in in the .40 S&W which might be useful in some hunting scenarios (but certainly not for LE/defence which the forte of the .40 S&W). If you really believe a 180-grain 10mm bullets has a sectional density advantage over a 180-grain .40 S&W, I'll be content to leave you in your own little dream-world.

We're still off-topic here (and if you'll check, you'll see that "bring up the 10mm" in this thread). Let's let the thread get back on topic before we're both in trouble with the moderators. So, I'll try once more: Hey, John, let's not hi-jack this thread.

[JohnKSa]

I didn't bring up the 10mm either.I didn't say you did. You'll be able to cut WAY back on your typing if you respond to what I said, rather than making up contradictions that don't exist.You chose to compare a boutique manufacturer...No, jc, YOU started quoting DT's ballistics. I just followed suit assuming that you considered their website a good source of information.

If you're trying to imply that quoting DT's ballistics is dirty pool then why did you start doing it?

If it's ok for you to use numbers from their site then why are you dinging me for doing the same?I have said in many difference posts hot 10mm (and .357 Magnum) loads can compare favorably with some low and low-medium .41 Magnum loadsAnd yet when I do the same, you accuse me of rigging the comparison. What's with that?

If it's somehow unfair to say that there are common factory loadings of the .41Mag that are matched by 10mm ballistics then why would you say it?

If it's ok for you to say that the 10mm compares favorably with some .41 Mag factory loads then why are you dinging me for saying the same?If you were realy interested in enlightening instead of misleading, you would have compared all Federal's 10mm offerings (425 fpe) to all its .41 Magnun offering (790 fpe)--or maybe compared DT's hot 10mm loads to Buffalo Bore's hot .357 Magnum (but we know how that would turn out which would defeat your purpose).That's a real stretch--no, I'm being far too generous. That's not a stretch, it's just plain not true. I was very careful to clearly caveat the comparison and to note the extent of the comparison that was intended (SOME common factory rounds) and even to say that the .41 Magnum could be loaded much heavier. I said the 10mm exceeded most of Federal's .41Mag offerings--it does. I said that there are hotter .41 Magnums out there--there are. There's no attempt to mislead, in fact there's an obvious effort to make sure that no misconceptions can arise.

If it's wrong to pick load data from one website and compare it to a load data from another website then why did you do it?

If it's ok to compare ballistics from one company to ballistics from another company, then why are you dinging me for it? that's why I describe them ballistics twins. What one can do, the other can do. The 10mm is autoloader equivalent of the .357 Magnum.TWINS? EQUIVALENT? In your last post you said...To call the 10mm the ballistic twin of the .357 Magnum might be a little being over generous to the 10mm.do know, don't you, that the .40 S&W and 10mm have the same sectional for the same bullet weight?Of COURSE I know that jc! :D EVERYONE knows that. What's more YOU know everyone knows that. :rolleyes: Ok, it's right there in my last post for everyone to read, but I'll quote it here so it's easy to find.the ability of the 10mm to handle much heavier, higher sectional density bulletsIn case you're in doubt, when a person says "much heavier", that pretty much rules out "same bullet weight". :D And yes, it's still off-topic.
...We're still off-topic here ... Let's let the thread get back on topic before we're both in trouble with the moderators. So, I'll try once more: Hey, John, let's not hi-jack this thread.Hey, it's up to you. You're the one with the guilty conscience... But I gotta say the fact that you clearly have demonstrated your intent to keep discussing the topic on this thread REALLY hurts your argument that doing so is somehow wrong. ;)

Ok, now you're arguing for these premises:

1. 10mm and .357Mag are equivalent, they're twins.
2. 10mm is inferior to .357Mag because the .357Mag beats the 10mm in velocity, energy and sectional density.
3. The 40S&W is not inferior to the 10mm in spite of the 10mm's velocity, energy and sectional density (due to being able to handle heavier bullets) advantages.
4. Comparing one company's load data to another company's load data is unfair.
5. Comparing one company's load data to another company's load data is ok . (You can even doctor the energy numbers if you like.) :D
6. Using DoubleTap's ballistics data for comparison is not kosher.
7. Using DoubleTap's ballistics data for comparison is just fine.
8. It's misleading to say that 10mm compares favorably to some common factory loadings of the .41 Magnum.
9. It's ok to say that the 10mm compares favorably to many factory loadings of the .41 Magnum--I do it all the time.

Care to pick one? Or would you like to continue trying to defend all of them simultaneously? :D :D

No wait--you're already past the "Defend the premise(s)" stage and have begun the "Deflect by attempting to create contradictions that don't exist", "Try to imply that the mods might lock the thread if the debate continues" and "Argue both sides of a premise to create confusion" stages. :D

[jc2]

John, your exact sentence was:
If sectional density is the key to the puzzle, then why do you discount the sectional density advantage of the 10mm over the .40 S&W?
So, I explained to you that the 10mm does not have a "sectional density advantage" over the .40 S&W as you stated (but of course, now you pretend to have known that all along). :rolleyes:

In the following sentence, you said:
Surely the ability of the 10mm to handle much heavier, higher sectional density bullets must give it a performance advantage.
Actually, John, the only "much heavier" bullet the 10mm handles is a lead 215-grain WFNGC (at least as far as factory loads go) which really is a rather specialized, limited use bullet. If you feel a need to shoot 215-grain lead bullet, the 10mm would probably be a better choice than the .40 S&W, but frankly, if I felt the need to go to that bullet weight or heavier, I'd choose something much better than the 10mm like a .41 or .44 Magnum.

[JohnKSa]

John, your exact sentence was:The statement was made in one sentence and expanded in the NEXT sentence. Here it is:...why do you discount the sectional density advantage of the 10mm over the .40 S&W? Surely the ability of the 10mm to handle much heavier, higher sectional density bullets...Are you really trying to ding me for putting 16 words between my reference to the advantage and the explanation of same? Weak... Beyond weak, in fact.I explained to you that the 10mm does not have a "sectional density advantage" over the .40 S&WNo, you effectively accused me of not knowing what sectional density is.

You may have THOUGHT that you explained that "the 10mm does not have a "sectional density advantage" over the .40 S&W" but it's not possible to do so given the fallacy of the statement. I explained (in the post in which I made the initial assertion) how it DOES have an advantage, and my explanation is correct.

If you'd like to reattempt to explain how the ability to handle heavier bullets in the same caliber does NOT translate to a sectional density advantage, then you're welcome to try. If you want my opinion, you'd be better off sleeping on it before you jump into that one.;) the only "heavier" bullet the 10mm handles is a lead 215-grain WFNGC (at least as far as factory loads go) which really is a rather specialized, limited use bullet.None of that challenges any assertion I have made--it's purely obfuscatory....if I felt the need to go to that bullet weight or heavier, I'd choose something ... like a .41 or .44 Magnum.Again, that does not impinge on any assertion I have made.

Ok, you added another premise--here's the updated list of premises you've postulated:

1. 10mm and .357Mag are equivalent, they're twins.
2. 10mm is inferior to .357Mag because the .357Mag beats the 10mm in velocity, energy and sectional density.
3. The 40S&W is not inferior to the 10mm in spite of the 10mm's velocity, energy and sectional density (due to being able to handle heavier bullets) advantages.
4. Comparing one company's load data to another company's load data is unfair.
5. Comparing one company's load data to another company's load data is ok . (You can even doctor the energy numbers if you like.)
6. Using DoubleTap's ballistics data for comparison is not kosher.
7. Using DoubleTap's ballistics data for comparison is just fine.
8. It's misleading to say that 10mm compares favorably to some common factory loadings of the .41 Magnum.
9. It's ok to say that the 10mm compares favorably to many factory loadings of the .41 Magnum--I do it all the time.
10. Heavier bullets in the same caliber do not have a sectional density advantage.

[jc2]

:rolleyes:

[MCgunner]

JohnKSa, fyi, in my own case, I get about 600fpe out of a 4 inch gun, 760 fpe out of a 6.5" gun with my 158 grain SWC handload using a cast, gas checked bullet from a Lee mold. I get 785 fpe from my 6.5" Blackhawk with a 180 grain Hornady XTP over 14.5 grains of AA#9. That load is HOT, somewhat sticky extraction, and I don't shoot it in other than my Blackhawk which is stout enough for more, but apparently the brass ain't. This is a hunting load with that weapon.

Regards to the 200 grain load in the 10, I just made the point that I thought the 10 might be slightly superior as a cartridge due to the fact that it will handle slightly heavier bullets. NO WAY is a 10 anywhere close to a .41, though. A handloaded .41 can give a .44 a run for its money. Decent loads in .41 are hard to find. I consider it a handloader's cartridge, much as I consider the 10 more and more a handloader's cartridge. Many 10mm factory loads are pathetically light, too.

I have no intent to start any kind of caliber war here. The man asked for an auto in .357 and I'm just saying there isn't an acceptable one made since the Coonan's demise (cool gun), but I don't see the need for one anyway. If you don't like revolvers, there is the 10mm for a power load. It is at LEAST equivalent to the .357 out of a 6 inch tube. Big bonus, the .357 is a rimmed cartridge and not designed for autos. The 10 is an auto round, rimless.

[jc2]

Have you seen Buffalo Bore's factory fodder for the .41 Magnum:

1. 6.5" Ruger

a. 265 gr. LWN-GC - 1379 fps
b. 230 gr. SWC (Keith-type) - 1459 fps
c. 170 gr. JHP - 1640 fps

2. 4" S&W Mountain Gun

a. 265 gr. LWN-GC - 1310 fps
b. 230 gr. SWC (Keith-type) - 1370 fps
c. 170 gr. JHP - 1551 fps

Without going back and doing the math, I'd say these all fall in the 1000 fpe range--considerably more potent than any 10mm loading.

[JohnKSa]

Hey guys, you're not arguing with me about the .41Mag vs the 10mm because I agree. :D

I qualified my statements regarding the comparison of the 10mm to the .41Mag VERY carefully. Then I went farther and said that the 41 could be loaded much heavier than any of the loads I mentioned--some of which already beat the 10mm hands down.

What I said was that the 10mm compares favorably with SOME COMMON* FACTORY** LOADINGS of the .41Magnum, and this is a statement that is beyond debate.

*Not all, not most, not even necessarily many, just SOME COMMON loads.
**Not handloads, not full potential loads, some common FACTORY loads. :D

Full potential .41 Mag loads (whether factory or handloads) handily outperform*** full potential 10mm loads.

***If you believe energy, velocity, bullet weight and sectional density are appropriate measures of performance! :D

[jc2]

Yep, some of the HOTTEST factory 10mm loads compare favorably with some the MILD common .41 Magnum factory loads. As you noted, when you compare hot 10mm factory loads to hot .41 Magnum, there is no comparison.

[JohnKSa]

Umm...

Thanks for the +1! ;)

[Brian Williams]

Back to the original topic
here is a pic of a Coonan
http://thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=18152&d=1074802974

[Peter M. Eick]

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/eickpm/357sig_44amp.jpg

Here is a relative comparison of the 357 sig (a 229 sport) and the 357 AutoMag.

(for the sake of accuracy the picture is actually a Pasadena A series 44 AMP made prior to the introduction of the 357 AutoMag).

[MCgunner]

The Coonan was a cool pistol concept. I'm not sure how reliable it fed or if it was picky about bullet shape. Revolvers don't care what sort of bullet shape or how much exposed lead they have. I doubt that Coonan could outshoot any of my revolvers and they won't shoot .38s much less wadcutters, so I just never saw a Coonan as desireable, but then, I'm a revolver guy to start with. I still think the 10mm is a better choice, anyway, than a revolver round in a pistol and apparently others agree with me because the Coonan is gone. There's no abundance of 10s available either. Even in this autoloader age, there still seems to be a place for the magnum revolver.