[Alan Fud]

It is commonly acknowledged that the .357mag is a superior stopper than the .45ACP and most recently, the .357SIG is starting to be acknowledged as being superior to the .45ACP as well.

Why?

Given the greater diameter of the .45 over a .357, wouldn't it disrupt more flesh & tissue which would result in greater damage and therefore be a better stopper?

I just don't understand how any smaller caliber round could ever be superior to a larger caliber round unless you're talking about rifle bullets VS handgun bullets where the velocity is a major factor.

[Boats]

"Commonly acknowledged?" By whom pray tell? I would agree that the .45ACP and the .357 Magnum share longstanding histories as effective equals earned over time and from the exploits of military and law enforcement shooters, but the .357 SIG has a ways to go to gain that kind of credibility.

I would also agree that Marshall & Sanow are full of banyard excrement if you are implying that they are the source of a reputation as a "superior stopper" for any handgun round.:banghead:

Bigger is better or the rounds that start with .4 would have all faded by now in deference to the higher cap and "more effective" intermediates. Funny, the .44 mag, .44 special, .45 Colt, .41 mag, 10mm, .40 S&W and the .45 ACP are all still with us. What must be those idiot big bore owners thinking when the legendary .357 magnum is out there for sale and the legendarily marketed .357 SIG is coming on strong?:D

[Preacherman]

Tough question, Alan. I think the .357 Magnum's wonderful reputation as a "stopper" is largely with one bullet weight, namely the 125gr. JHP. This seems to strike the perfect balance between velocity, impact, expansion, etc. With other loads - e.g. the 158gr. JHP - the .357 does not have quite as good a stopping record. I don't know about the very light-for-caliber 110gr. rounds - certainly they're not as lauded as the 125gr. stuff, and I would think that they would lack sufficient penetration for certain tactical situations.

The .45 ACP had a good reputation in the days of ball ammunition - a solid .357 slug is not going to do as much damage as a solid .451 slug in terms of permanent wound cavity, and with solids, the temporary cavity is nothing to write home about. With JHP's, the .45 improved substantially, into the 19-out-of-20 range with some rounds: but the .357 improved even more with the 125gr. round, ending up marginally ahead of the .45 by M&S's take on the subject. The added velocity and expansion of the .357 allowed it to equal the lesser expansion and lower velocity of the .45 in its effect on human flesh.

The 357 SIG was designed to duplicate the 125gr. .357 Magnum load, and did so very well, coming within 100 fps or so from comparable barrel lengths. Its street results so far have been pretty good, judging from feedback provided by the Texas DPS, the Secret Service, etc. Both of these rounds are very flat-shooting, and are said to have a "hit-by-a-lightning-bolt" effect on someone shot with them. The .45 does not have the same dramatic impact effect (probably due to its lower velocity in standard loads), but seems to drop an aggressive attacker just about as well, given a good COM hit or two (or three). The really light, fast .45 loads (e.g. the Cor-Bon 165gr. and 185gr. JHP +P's, and recently the 165gr. Pow'rBall) are said to deliver much more impact shock, with visibly greater reactions in those shot with them, but I can't quote first-hand accounts. Makes sense, though, as these bullets are moving at about 200 fps faster than standard .45 velocities.

I guess that velocity does count in the "immediate-effect" department, but this is still a hotly-debated issue, and I don't think we're likely to find general agreement on it during our lifetimes.

[tbeb]

The .357 magnum is not superior to the .45 ACP as a manstopper.

If you choose the right ammo and shoot straight, the 9mm and .357 magnum/.357 Sig and .40 S&W and .45 ACP are equal for personal self defense, in my opinion.

[tiberius]

It is commonly acknowledged that the .357mag is a superior stopper than the .45ACP


By whom?


These are my two favorite general purpose pistol cartridges, but I wasn't aware that there was a "general acknowledgement" on one's total superiority.:scrutiny:

[arinvolvo]

To put it plainly, size is not the only factor.

The biggest factor is energy.

Granted, a 45 bullet traveling as fast as a 357 mag or SIG bullet will be carrying much more energy....but that isnt the case.

The 45 is a slow moving round. ANd even though it is big, other calibers make up for the size different with more speed, equaling out to more potential energy carried by the smaller bullet.

Now when hollow point bullets come into play, the bigness of the 45 is even less of an issue. Faster moving HP bullets, carrying more energy will expand with greater consistency than slower bullets with less energy.

both 45 and 357 are excellent, proven man stoppers. even calibers such as the 32 can kill......any bullet has the potential to kill...or for a one stop shot.

I would like to see a 45 SIG or some other bottlenecked 45...that would be one bad @ss round....However, the 1911 guys might end up with even less rounds to work with...given the added diameter, shoved into a single stack mag...probably get 5 rounds in there...

but then again...the 1911 guys only need one round...or so they would have us believe.:neener: :rolleyes:

[JPM70535]

I always understood that the main reason for the 357s superiority vs the 45 acp was primarily due to the hydrostatic shock generated by the supersonic velocity of the 357 (above 1100 fps), as opposed to the 45s subsonic velocity.

Of course that is only one opinion. Many others feel that the 45 is superior to the 357, and if you compare hardball to hardball, then that is certainly the case. A 45 caliber hole is bigger than a 357 hole and common sense would dictate it would do more damage.

I tend to lean to the high velocity shock theory. I have seen how a gallon jug of water reacts to a hit fron a 357 125 gr JHP at 1400 fps, as opposed to the reaction of the same jug of water to a hit from a 230 JRN 45 at 900 fps.

It would not be a good thing to be hit by either of them however, and in spite of the statements made here, i'll keep on carrying my 45.

[355sigfan]

Both are good rounds that I would rate as about equal. They get thier great effectiveness two different ways. The 357 has lots of energy and bullet fragments and disrupts a lot of tissue. The 45 acp expands to large diameters and pokes a large permante hole into someone. My faviorate 45 acp load is as hot as many 357's. The +p 230 Ranger T at 980 with 500 foot pounds.
PAT

[Dobe]

If the .357 mag is more effective as a defense round, it is at a price. Many of the hot 125 gr rounds have a serious muzzle flash and the recoil is not light either. This makes a fast second shot a little more difficult. Since most of the SD 357's are 4" revolvers, this makes the situation worse.

If you wish to compare a higer velocity round to the ancient .45 ACP, I suggest that you look at it this way. The .45 was created before there were advances in bullet design and used extensively by our military, who could not and cannot use expanding bullets anyway. The designers of this cartridge understood basic physics: The larger the bullet, the larger the wound. They also uIndersood that if the cartridge were made too powerful, many will not be able to control it.

By contrast, the higher velocity rounds require a well made projectile. This is easier done with a revolver than the auto, because of feeding issues. The higher the velocity, the more likely the bullet will expand. The problem is that even with rifle bullets and high quality ammo, there are situations where bullets do not perform as designed. Yet, a big bullet will always be a big bullet.

[dude]

F=MA (always)

[Erik]

I don't acknowledge the .357 Magnum as superior to the .45acp.

Lots of folks don't.

Besides, even if you do you are likely basing you viewpoint on the M&S statistics, which is at best a tenuous position to be arguing from.

Or, as I see even here, the energy or hydrostatic shock beliefs. Again, tenuous positions at best. (Think of all those folks who have survived COM wounds from rifle fire.)

I know, I know. I just haven't been hit in the pinky by a .223 Reallyfastmagnum round yet. Hopefully I never will. ;)

[Jeeper]

F=MA:confused: :confused: :confused:

As an engineer I have always been curious to this application. Why use this for force. The bullet is not accelerating once it leaves the barrel. So F=M*(0) which equals 0. Am I missing something?

[tiberius]

The A is the negative acceleration while it is in the body, but I'm not sure how relevant this is to stopping power.

[Penforhire]

Yeah, the more relevant expression is probably for kinetic energy (m x v-squared). And if a round penetrates and continues it certainly did NOT dump all of its energy into the target. Seems to me that if your round is not going to knock down the perp then critical systemic damage is what you're looking for. Highly frangible ammo sounds best, except it needs to penetrate any light cover or clothing on the target first.

[MrAcheson]

Wow so much pseudo-physics in one thread.

.357 proven superior to .45acp? By whom? Even if you accept M&S numbers, their sample sizes are too small to distinguish between the top tier calibers. .40, .45, 10mm, 9mm, .357whatever, they're all pretty close.

Hydro-static shock? From a handgun? On something as big as a human? Ha! Thats a good one.

Energy most important? Pistol bullet energy is enough to heat a cup of water a couple of degrees. People are mostly water. If transferred to the target badly that is all a bullet will do, slightly raise your body temperature.

The truth is that bigger isn't necessarily better (in both energy and momentum and bullet weight and lots of other stuff) because the terminal physics of a bullet hitting a human being are complex and can't be boiled down to one simple number.

[Bobarino]

why isn't bigger always better? because if you shoot .357sig like a dead-eye, but can't hit the braod side of a barn with a .45, then in your case, smaller is much better. some folks shoot different stuff beter than others. reminds me of the chocolate vs. vanilla debate. both taste good, but different. with the excellent types of defensive ammo out there, it all boils down to personal preference. thats just my ever-so-humble-yet-seemingly-always-correct opinion. ;-)

Bobby

[Frohickey]

But you are wrong... Bigger is better!!!

A 115grain bullet going 1245FPS has 396 ft lbs of energy.

A 230grain bullet going 880FPS has 396 ft lbs of energy.

But a 39.2million grain bullet going 36FPS has 112,805 ft lbs of energy (5600 lb Suburban going 25MPH).

The lesson, here, boys and girls, is that if you see a bad guy pull out a gun and point it at you, while you are in a running car, you already are cocked and locked, safety off. You just have to make sure you have the correct 'sight picture'. And you have 2, one forward, and one reverse. :D

[TheMariner]

hehehe... I like that...

[cratz2]

I still feel that none too small a part of the reason why the 357 Magnum is very effective on the street is that a lot of guys that carry a 357 magnum, even as backup, are more likely to actually practice... more than twice a year. This leads to better shot placement and shot placement is what kills. A 357 shot in the shoulder isn't going to kill but a 45ACP through a lung or heart just might.

[blades67]

Why isn't bigger better?


Because life is like that.

[Majic]

The energy of the .357mag only comes into play for penetration after the bullet expands thus giving it a wider frontal area.
The .45 starts out with a wider frontal area and also expands but it relies on the mass of the bullet to acheive it's penetration.
You have to raise the energy of a smaller object to achieve the same penetration of a heavier, slower object. Slow the .357mag down to the .45 speed of 850 fps and it will not perform very well because of the weight difference. Speed the .45 up to .357mag levels of around 1300 fps and it would do massive damage with extreme over penetration.
The .357mag performs only when it expands. If the HP plugs then it creates a small channel. The .45 with its larger frontal area will always make a bigger channel.
Both cartridges with premium bullets in their best repective loadings are about equal.

[TechBrute]

Oh good!!! Fud started another "which is a better caliber" thread.

I personally love his opening quote:
It is commonly acknowledged that the .357mag is a superior stopper than the .45ACP and most recently, the .357SIG is starting to be acknowledged as being superior to the .45ACP as well.
Where did you come up with this one? I know I'm not the first to ask, but you never answered the other people.

Alan Fud has inspired me to add a new line to my signature.

[Alan Fud]

TechBrute, do I complain about the threads that you start?

I thought the whole point of these discussion forums is to share the information that you know and learn what you don't -- not to belittle others who MIGHT not be as knowledgeable as you in SOME areas.

And to answer the question, I have seen it mentioned in print (in addition to the internet) from more than one source.

[HadEmAll]

I know this one. Because faster is better than bigger is better. Right? Oh this wasn't a riddle? :mad:

[Walosi]

The Texas DPS went to the .357 SIG because of the ballistic similarity to the .357 Mag. One of their techs put away the slide rule, and said that in the the history of the DPS, the 125 gr., 1450 fps loads were the most damaging they had ever issued, including the .45 acp.

[russlate]

Last I heard of, the gun with the best stopping record in the history of NYPD was the 30 carbine with hollow points.

Go figure.

[S_O_Laban]

Alan and the rest reading this thread. I sugest taking a look over a Tactical forums http://www.tacticalforums.com/ for some insight into the performace of the 357sig. Go to the terminal effects forum and do a search on 357sig

[Mikul]

I know SOMEONE is going to disagree, but most people on this board agree that the 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP are comparable in effectiveness when comparing the best self-defense round in each caliber.

The .357 spits bullets of a wider diameter, heavier weight, and significantly higher velocity than the 9mm. Even if we're talking about the 125gr .357, it's the same weight as a 9mm, but travelling AT LEAST 300fps faster.

If we're relying on velocity to expand a bullet, the .357 has it in spades and may owe it's effectiveness to more reliable expansion.

[WESHOOT2]

Energy is mathematics.
Velocity matters.
Size matters.
Shot placement matters.

None of these factors matter if you aren't there.............

Still not science. Rats.

[45auto]

From what I read it seems common sense that the larger bullets, with proper penetration, will cause more damage.
If you hit the two vital areas that cause immediate incapacation, then there is no issue between the calibers.
Outside of that, in handgun velocities, it appears the amount of tissue destroyed and the penetration determine how effective(time) the 'stop' will be!
I read that hollow points probably expand 60-70% if the time. If they expand properly, then it appears the smaller calibers are close or equal to larger calibers. Of course, if the larger caliber expand, they are still larger. If they don't expand, then it appears the larger is better.

That doesn't mean I would feel "under-gunned" with 9mm type calibers, but I suspect "larger is better".

[VictorLouis]

I personally love his opening quote:..Where did you come up with this one? I know I'm not the first to ask, but you never answered the other people.


TechBrute, I thought I'd echo Alan's response. Masaad Ayoob's writings have mentioned similar results to those recorded by M&S'. Another gent mentioned Texas DPS' own observations over the years. LEO journals not normally read by even us 'gunnies' also have said as much.

Just because it's been said before doesn' mean I agree with it. So, ease up a bit.;)

[MLC]

Bigger, Better Best (http://members.fortunecity.com/howda/howda.html)

Came across this fellows page today, serious firepower.

[charleym3]

It is commonly acknowledged that the .357mag is a superior stopper than the .45ACP

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

It's also common knowledge that guns cause crime, young women cause divorce, and ice cream causes fat.

When you get into the most effective rounds available the difference in stopping effectiveness is more theoretical than real. The difference between 89% and 92% one shot stops isn't enough to make me change the gun or ammo that I carry. It's all in the placement.

[SkunkApe]

I'm with Alan Fud on this one. Granted, when compared to rifle rounds, the relative effectiveness of handgun ammunition is fairly minor (as Charleym3 pointed out). But I have always been on the impression, as Alan, that the.357 is considered to be a better stoper than the .45 ACP.

Over the years, I've a heard a few guys argue that the .45 might be AS GOOD AS the .357, but not BETTER than the .357. Most arguments in favor of the .45 are based on the weapon itself, i.e. more rounds in the magazine and single-action triggers.

Alan should hardly be ridiculed for stating what IS the commonly-held opinion of most people familiar with firearms.

Heck, the .45 doesn't even meet the requirements for deer hunting in some places.

[charleym3]

In the circles that I run in most seem to believe that the .45 is a better stopper than the .357.

"commonly acknowledged" is right up ther with "experts agree" and "everyone knows" in meaingless arguments that my wife has made to try and convince me carring a gun is wrong. At my house sweeping generalizations will nearly always end up with speaker getting filleted, deboned, and hung out to dry with out mercy or remorse.

[Shaughn Leayme]

I wonder if it is the skill level of the users of 357 magnum and the 45 acp that is the deciding factor, for the most part.

The 45 ACP and it's generally preferred platform (1911), usually is found in the hands of the elite (with qualifications) and the mantra is practice, practice, practice. You also have the advanced practical users who are willing to spend the time in becoming proficient, instead of coffee with the buddies, they are at the range.

The 357 Magnum is often an option for those who want to carry them (notice I said want). The 357 magnum when firing the featured 125 grain load is not exactly tame. It bellows, spits out a fair sized fire ball and gives you a fair amount of recoil. You have to be serious in your practice to master this combination (4 inch or less barreled revolver) and firing it without muffs or plugs can be unpleasent, though in an actual encounter, you probably won't hear it. (audio exclusion)

As far as bullet design, weight and velocity, these are undeniably factors, but they are a combination and to try and quantify them individualy take's away from the whole.

It really comes down to placement, placement, placement.

So is one better than the other? Beats me:D

I am quite happy with a S&W 686 or my 1911 and know both will do the job, provided I do mine.