357 Magnum vs 45 ACP


PDA






Pages : [1] 2

rugerman07
April 6, 2008, 07:53 AM
Which is best for personal defense? Which one packs the hardest punch? Are they pretty much equal when it comes to stopping power?

If you enjoyed reading about "357 Magnum vs 45 ACP" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Mandirigma
April 6, 2008, 07:57 AM
grabs the popcorn and Dr. Pepper


Ain't been one of these in a while....heh

cornman
April 6, 2008, 08:15 AM
.357 is much more dangerous and makes a good hunting round. The .45 will usually be the better way to go indoors.

teknoid
April 6, 2008, 08:19 AM
Which one packs the hardest punch?

That's kinda like asking which model truck you'd rather be run over by. Either one will do the job admirably.

Bill_G
April 6, 2008, 08:32 AM
shoot a full house 357 at night at your pistol range (lights off) without ear muffs, and i guarantee you wont ever do it again!:what: thats what its like shooting it at home at night for self defense.

modern designed name brand 38+p is the way to go. like gold dots.... golden sabre etc.

rugerman07
April 6, 2008, 08:36 AM
The reason I asked this question is because a guy I work with who is very knowledgeable when it comes to guns claims the 45 ACP actually has more stopping power than the 357 magnum.

bikerdoc
April 6, 2008, 08:41 AM
another versus threads, yawn. ok i will play. Have both, use both.
"best for personal defense?"- the one you can hit what is threatening you. As for hardest punch, and stopping power, let the statistics, references,quotes, and passions flow!

mccook8
April 6, 2008, 08:43 AM
Some of you might remember that, back in the 80's, Evan Marshall did a study of actual shootings and found that the .357 mag 125gr SJHPs managed 96% one-shot stops, compared to about 65% for .45 ACP 230gr JHPs.

I'd say that .357 is better.....as long as you don't need to reload.

Ash
April 6, 2008, 08:47 AM
Well, 357 has significantly more energy than the 45acp.

Ash

ojibweindian
April 6, 2008, 08:53 AM
Some of you might remember that, back in the 80's, Evan Marshall did a study of actual shootings and found that the .357 mag 125gr SJHPs managed 96% one-shot stops, compared to about 65% for .45 ACP 230gr JHPs.


Actually, that is incorrect. The 230 grain Federal Hydra-Shok was rated by Marshall and Sanow to be 94% effective.

I refer you to this chart: http://www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_power_chart.htm

flyby
April 6, 2008, 09:30 AM
^yup ..the lower rating was for hard ball

mljdeckard
April 6, 2008, 09:48 AM
Even if you regard the Marshall tests as absolute gospel, what we are talking about here is probability. There are those who say that the ammount of energy a bullet takes into a target is entirely irrelevant, as no pistol round has enough actual energy to 'knock a man down'. This would mean that, it doesn't matter if a .357 has more energy than a .357, it's smaller and therefore less potent.

On the other hand, there are those who regard the difference between the diameter of an expanded .45 bullet and a .357 bullet to be insignificant, both creating roughly the same size wound channel, and therin cm3 of tissue damage, making the 2 mm of difference in size irrelevant.

I will be sticking with .45s, mostly because I like 1911s better than large-frame revolvers for defensive shooting. But anyone who is trying to definitively say that one has a clear advantage over the other is probably justifying whichever one they happen to own, or their uncle who was a cop for two years told them was the best.

Ash
April 6, 2008, 10:15 AM
The 357 is generally not chambered in large frame revolvers, but medium-frames. Large frames are generally reserved for 44's and 45's (and larger).

Ash

wnycollector
April 6, 2008, 10:18 AM
I own both caliber's, I shoot them both well and carry both. I feel confident that either one will do the job if called upon.

With that being said, for outdoor activites such as hiking/canoeing I prefer the .357, mainly because of the revolver platform.

Ghost Tracker
April 6, 2008, 11:08 AM
Let's, just for fun, agree...that both have exactly the same one-shot stopping power (+94% with the right defensive loads). Now, go spend ALL DAY training and/or practicing firing several hundred rounds; all drills, from a variety of positions, indoors/outdoors, low/bright light, etc., etc.

You'll soon come to the same opinion (I said opinion) that most experienced pistoleros eventually reach. If both calibers & formats provide generally the same stopping power, and you (want/have) to shoot A LOT...the .45 acp is a more comfortable way to do the same thing.

If I'm going to a class at Gunsite (Thunder Ranch, where-ever), and someone has brought a .357 mag as their tool-of-choice, I (personally) would prefer them to be at the other end of the firing line than positioned next to me. My nerves & focus will remain more "collected" by the end of the day. That being said...I still think the .357 mag is a great caliber in a mid-size revolver.

Ash
April 6, 2008, 11:15 AM
Yet, to claim exactly the same, the 357 must be reduced to 45ACP performance. I use a 45ACP EAA Witness, though do have Colt Trooper Mk III 357's. The fact remains that the 357 is more powerful than 45ACP. It is a more capable field cartridge when dealing with animals and is most certainly more capable than 45ACP. There is a reason why almost all police carried 357's over 45 revolvers. Size of platform is one reason, of course. But the fact remains that the 357 was issued when the 45 was not. Even when revolvers were discarded for autos, the 45 was not the first choice.

Again, I prefer my 45ACP for home (carried it after Katrina). But the 357 without doubt packs the hardest punch.

Ash

Ghost Tracker
April 6, 2008, 11:22 AM
Okay, but if I'm squirrel hunting, and both my .223 & my .45-70 is plenty of power (very tough Kentucky squirrels) to get the job done with the same confidence, would you make the same comparison? That the 45-70 stops squirrels better?

Ben Shepherd
April 6, 2008, 11:54 AM
Raw Horsepower? The 357 wins. Just physics.

Shootability? Most folks I know will tell you that they can get follow up shots quicker with a 45 than with a snubby 357. This because of that power difference. A mid-sized or even compact 1911 in 45 recoils much less that a 2 or 3 inch snubby revolver with full house 357 ammo.

Ammo capacity: 90 percent of the time, the 45 will have more ammo on tap before needing a reload.

Portability: Generally a semi-auto is easier to carry/conceal than a snubby. It's the ergonomics. Short barreled revolvers are short AND wide. Kind of like holstering a baseball. Whereas a semi auto is fairly flat and easy to hide. Slightly more forgiving if your carry gear isn't up to snuff, as they spread the weight out over a wider area.

packnrat
April 6, 2008, 12:06 PM
hay i need a new home defence gun, shoud i use a .22 pocket gun or a rifle chamberd in 50bmg?:uhoh:


both will get the job done,:eek:


just sitting here eating popcorn and a soft drink injoying the ranting:neener:


.

MCgunner
April 6, 2008, 12:09 PM
It's more of whether you like autos or revolvers as I see it. The .357 is the more powerful round by a good margin, more equal to the 10mm than the .45ACP. But, in self defense loads, the .45 is plenty and has advantages even if you don't like autos, like less muzzle blast and quicker recovery shot to shot and the fact that in self defense revolvers of less than 3" barrels, the .357 doesn't really have a whole log on the better .45 loads. It's only equal to the 10mm out of 6" barrels. Cut barrel length to 2 incyhes and you give up a LOT and gain a LOT of muzzle blast. Neither the .357 nor the .45 ACP is magic. They still require shot placement.

BTW, I'll take my SP101 for carry ANY day over a 1911 for ease of carry and concealment, no contest, SP101 wins that fight. I've carried both in good leather with good belts. I know this. A 1911 might theoretically "spread the weight", but it's a hell of a lot heavier than the SP101's 27 ounces. 40 ounce guns pull my pants down and I'm constantly hitchin' 'em up. Not so the SP101. It ain't the leather, Milt Sparks.

DougDubya
April 6, 2008, 07:03 PM
There WAS a thread named this only a couple weeks ago, right?

DougDubya
April 6, 2008, 07:05 PM
Okay, but if I'm squirrel hunting, and both my .223 & my .45-70 is plenty of power (very tough Kentucky squirrels) to get the job done with the same confidence, would you make the same comparison? That the 45-70 stops squirrels better?

I would think that the .45-70 doesn't stop a squirrel. The heart flies left. The kidneys fly right. And everything in between remains in between, but an inch from itself across 12 feet of spray spatter.

Archer1945
April 6, 2008, 10:58 PM
The 357 is generally not chambered in large frame revolvers, but medium-frames. Large frames are generally reserved for 44's and 45's (and larger).

Wrong!!! The 357 was chambered in large frame revolvers long before it was put into medium and now, small frame, guns. The S&W N-frame Model 27 and Model 28 were catalog items for years before the K-frame Model 19 arrived on the scene. Colt, Dan Wesson and Ruger all have/had large frame 357's. The Colt Python and Trooper definitely were not medium frame guns. The frame on the L-frame Smiths is almost the same size as the N-frame, they just have a K-frame grip.

Bill Jordan convinced S&W they would sell more 357s if they would come out with a K-frame version because the N-frame Model 27 & 28 were much too large for comfortable all day carry and too large for most people to grip easily.

xjchief
April 6, 2008, 11:17 PM
Aren't the 45 the 357 are inferior to the 9mm?

Muahahahahahhaahah :evil:

http://www.undergroundgarage.net/forums/images/smilies/happy1.gif

Cromlech
April 6, 2008, 11:37 PM
I've only shot one handgun in each calibre (1911A1 and S&W 586). I found that the .357 Mag had a really nice flat trajectory, and was VERY loud. Great to shoot. The .45acp was more of a gentle shove, and seemed to shoot high - though that was probably down to me. I imagine that I could have shot more .45acp rounds before wearing my wrist out than .357 Mag rounds, but I really loved the .357 Mag. More so than the .44 Mag I fired from a 629 classic.

-v-
April 7, 2008, 12:26 AM
Ghost Tracker, let me guess got a boron-carbide plated squirrel infestation going? Yeah had one of those a few weeks back, I hear a .50BMG with API or a 14.7 works wonders :D.
/asshattery

All silliness, aside, pick what you can shoot the best, but that being said, if someone is worth shooting once, he's worth shooting twice, and I think with a .45 most people will get that second shot in that much faster. A few percent less "one shot stop" rating is worthwhile if it means you can double-tap the guy in the same time it takes to recover from the recoil of a "magnum" cartridge.

RNB65
April 7, 2008, 12:32 AM
Yes.
-

Snapping Twig
April 7, 2008, 02:55 AM
I wouldn't feel underarmed with either, but if I was hunting, I'd prefer the .357, and if I was up against a BG, I'd prefer a 1911 in .45acp.

I can hit the gong at 100 yards all day long with the .357, but I can accurately double tap with a 1911 and I can't do that with a .357, so for me it's the .45acp in a 1911.

ArchAngelCD
April 7, 2008, 02:59 AM
I'm not going to comment on the .357 Magnum vs .45 Auto because that already badly beaten horse has already died, but:
The reason I asked this question is because a guy I work with who is very knowledgeable when it comes to guns
Who says he's very knowledgeable? Is it self professed? Just because someone can talk about guns all day long and sound like he knows what he's talking about doesn't make him right.

There are a lot of people in this world who will repeat what they hear because they think it's right and want to sound smart. They will hear something over and over and then regurgitate it so as not to be different. It happens a lot on forums and it happens a lot in real life. In both situations just because the same story is being told by many doesn't make the story true.

Of course you have no reason to believe what I say because it's only my opinion and by my own statements, just because I'm saying doesn't make it true. :p

BikerRN
April 7, 2008, 07:52 AM
357 Magnum vs 45 ACP

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which is best for personal defense? Which one packs the hardest punch? Are they pretty much equal when it comes to stopping power?
__________________

The best one for personal defense is the one you shoot best and have confidence in. As far as packing a punch, I'll take the .357 Magnum any day of the week. All decent quality handgun rounds are "pretty much equal" when it comes to stopping power. I put my trust and absolute faith in none of them.

BikerRN

jenrob
April 7, 2008, 08:59 AM
If carring concealed I useally carry a SP101 357 When I carry open or cancealed in the winter I carry a Les Baer 1911 45ACP which one stop best. Don't know never been shoot with either and never shoot anybody with them.

Cours I guess if one of these day comes along and can ask the BG to come back in a few weeks I wnat to try a different gun and tell me if it hurt more if you can.

Andy W
April 8, 2008, 09:09 AM
I carry a K frame or a 1911 OWB and have complete confidence in both. The 1911 does conceal better though. I tend to carry the K frame more in colder weather.

researchdoc
April 8, 2008, 10:15 AM
If you look at the .45 with a 3" bbl, the reduction in velocity from a 5" to the 3" is significant. I once chronographed a .45ACP out of a 2" revolver. It was anemic. In the 600s. I shot it into a wood pile. Granted the wood was semi rotted, when I recovered the bullet it was unscratched. I chronied .357 full mag 125gr. out of a 2" and it was in the low 1200fps... Same wood pile, the bullet mushroomed.
I love the .45. But for hideouts and short bbls, give me the .357. If I open carried everywhere, I would tote the .45 in a 5"

DawgFvr
April 8, 2008, 11:22 AM
Actually, Corbon makes a very good 160 grain DPX round for the short barrel, compact .45 ACP. It mushrooms very nice indeed and has good penetration:

http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/Corbon%20160%20gr%20DPX.htm

I have and like both. I love my 3 inch barrel GP100 and my Taurus Mellennium Pro PT145 is a nice compact, DAO (2nd Generation) .45 ACP

Both are short barrels and both get the appropriate Corbon DPX all copper top. The 357 gets the 125 grain DPX + P.

Ala Dan
April 8, 2008, 11:39 AM
Oops~! Its get'in deep fell'as- keep the thoughts coming while I reload
my .45 ACP magazines~! ;) :D :D :D

mavracer
April 8, 2008, 01:11 PM
have both, carry both, both work and I'm sure if I ever need one I won't wish it was the other, I'll wish it was an AR15.

SWMAN
April 8, 2008, 01:44 PM
357 in a revolver, 45 acp in a pistol. Carry both.

BlindJustice
April 8, 2008, 02:59 PM
I have a S&W 1911 I also have a S&W 686P 4" Bbl. with
Hogue COmpac gripss. when you hold them side by side
they're about the same O.A.L. and ther're both 39 oz unloaded.

MOst velocity/energy figures tossed around are the .357 Mag
with a 6" Bbl. The 1911, although it is said to have a 5" Bbl. that
includes the length of a .45 ACP's 0.898 case, so it's really 4" of
rifling.so the 1911 and the 686P 4" Bbl. are valid to compare adding
I have a strong side Milt sparks, FBI cant holster for each, the
#Axiom and the 686P - the Axiom isn't high ride so ther're about
equal for carry factors of weight, accessibility, and covering for
concealed carry.

1911 - 8 + 1 Wilson Combat ETM magazine.
SPare mag in a Milt SParks IWB single carrier
686P 7 shot cyl. HKS 587 SPeedloader
I have yet to get a belt carrier for the speedloader
but when/if I did it would certainly be more of a bulge
as well as being slower to get out and operate to reload.

My usual load for the 1911 Hornady XTP JHPs @ 1,000 FPS
686P 140 or 159 gr. Hornady XTP JHP at approx. 1350 and 1225
FPS respectively. but in order to get to the same recovery from the
heavier recoil, after shooting these loads I've gone to .38 SPecial +P
125 gr. Hornady XTP JHP @ 1,000 FPS Maybe other people can recover
with the full house .357 Mag loads I find it difficult. Maybe that's
just me.

So, where's that score card?

Carry Draw
Capacity Edge to 1911
spare/reload Edge 1911
Power vs Repeat shots - Edge 1911

I also have a S&W 625 5" Bbl. 45 oz empty
Carry: I'm convinced the only way to carry this
tank would be an ALessi Field Master shoulder rig
which holds the N-Frame vertical/muzzle down. Oh,
it also has full size Hogue grips which help control,
it's great for double taps Reloading it beats the 686P
with the full moon clips and the short case length easily
clearing teh thumb latch, where the long case with the 7 shot
cylinder has hanging empties all too often.

If I wanted to have a .45 ACP revolver for a like strong
side carry rig, I'd want a 4" Bbl. N-frame and go with the Hogue
N-frame round butt compact grips. I think it's del fatti that
makes a trick holder for the loaded full moon clips where you
roll your thumb on the snap and the loaded FUll moon falls into
your hand which beats the snot out of the usual HKS speedloader
belt carrier with it's unsnap and draw the speedloader out.

Go in the Rockies to the east and which would I take with a
once in a blue moon chance of a grizzly?

hmmm, getting .400 CorBon barrel from Jarvis Inc.
out of the 1911 "Kit" swap barrels in 1911, go to ammo
bin, grab .400 CorBon 155 gr. hornady XTP @ 1,350 FPS
load chamber and 8 round magazine(s).

Y'all use what works for you.

oh, bedside gun or for any S.O. or other unarmed
reasonably capable dude in camp - Model 60 .357 mag
3" Barrel loaded with .38 SPcl 125 gr. Speer Gold Dot
@ 950 fps Load Safariland Comp-I speedloader

I'm thinking the 686P oughta have the cylinder cut
for the 7 shot full moon clips to solve the HKS Speedloader
option.

Ltlabner
April 8, 2008, 05:25 PM
The real question is which is better, Glock or a well-built 1911?
:evil:

{ducks and runs off}

SAWBONES
April 8, 2008, 10:09 PM
If I'm going to a class at Gunsite (Thunder Ranch, where-ever), and someone has brought a .357 mag as their tool-of-choice, I (personally) would prefer them to be at the other end of the firing line than positioned next to me. My nerves & focus will remain more "collected" by the end of the day.

Agree! :-)
Also agree that I'd rather shoot 100 rounds of .45ACP JHP from one of my 1911s than 100 rounds of .357 Magnum 158gr JHP from one of my SP101s. Last time I did the latter, I had a good blister on my palm. No big deal, but it doesnt happen with shooting .45ACP.
Certainly the .357 has better penetration, but for most CCW use, I favor the .45ACP, since I have no expectation of needing to penetrate either car windshield glass or sheet metal, as a mere civilian CCW practitioner, and I tend to believe in the stopping effects of big heavy bullets.

Tom Servo
April 8, 2008, 11:39 PM
1) I would postulate that "stopping power" is a myth created by ammunition companies and gun magazine writers.

2) Shot placement is what truly counts in a gunfight, regardless of diameter, weight or powder charge. I know guys who've won gunfights with .32's. Train, train, train!

Both the .45 and .357 are wonderful rounds with a proven track record in the field. When it comes to the Marshall/Sanow/Fackler stuff, bear in mind the authors don't mention accuracy. Does the .357 have a great one-shot-stop rate because of its ballistics, or because the guys carrying it were excellent shots?

That's a question I ponder when people dismiss the 9x19 as ineffective. It could be that the folks from the data pool carrying 9mm weren't as good as the guys carrying .45.

One of my carry guns is a Sig P220 in .45, the other a S&W 66 in .357. I'd stake my life on either. While I agree that shooting 100 rounds of full-house .357 can get tiring, I know the gun to be accurate and fast enough. (Also, bear in mind that the 66 can shoot .38's as well, thus doubling the amount of ammunition available for it.)

Neither round will knock a human being off their feet, nor will it send them flying across the room. Come to think of it, few small arms will.

So...at the end of the day, stick with what you shoot well.

(Says me, currently carrying a 9mm :))

lance22
April 9, 2008, 11:20 AM
HERETICS! Only the .88 Magnum will stop 'em cold!

Click here (http://eightyeightmagnum.ytmnd.com/) to listen to a personal defense expert describe the awesome stopping power of the .88 magnum.

The .88 hits so hard that even if the bullets nicks the perp on the arm the body will explode due to massive kinetic energy, and the head will pop off the body and shoot up into orbit like a rocket, leaving a vapor trail behind it - this is also due to simple physics and kinetic energy.

Evan Marshall wrote in his famous book regarding Stopping Power that the .88 is so high velocity and the projectile so mammoth, that a vacuum is created behind the bullet so that even a miss is deadly. The perp is sucked into the vacuum left in the bullets wake which is so powerful that it can tear a grown man in half. Massad Ayoob also wrote regarding the .88 that it was too much gun for him in his younger years, but has since "man'd up" and carries one when not on duty. The cartridge was originally designed by the late Elmer Keith after a night of heavy drinking, and was moved into production by S&W. Elmer never forgave Colt for not making a Single Action Army in .88 and he went to his grave bitter.

In conclusion - the mighty .88 rules, making all other rounds obsolete.

Rampant_Colt
April 9, 2008, 08:58 PM
Quote:
Some of you might remember that, back in the 80's, Evan Marshall did a study of actual shootings and found that the .357 mag 125gr SJHPs managed 96% one-shot stops, compared to about 65% for .45 ACP 230gr JHPs

Actually, that is incorrect. The 230 grain Federal Hydra-Shok was rated by Marshall and Sanow to be 94% effective.

I refer you to this chart: http://www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_power_chart.htm
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/9932/animrofl2sh4.gifhttp://img151.imageshack.us/img151/971/animlolabovetn6.gifhttp://img88.imageshack.us/img88/9932/animrofl2sh4.gif

Here's proof to back what i'm saying here:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/sanow-strikes-out.htm
http://www.firearmstactical.com/marshall-sanow-discrepancies.htm
http://www.firearmstactical.com/afte.htm

NO handgun cartridge produces anywhere near 90% one-shot stopping power - that's complete rubbish that has been debunked.

.357 Magnum vs .45 ACP= welcome to 1979
autoloader vs revolver

tblt
April 9, 2008, 09:01 PM
357 more punch 45 more bullets?????

Geronimo45
April 10, 2008, 12:01 AM
Is this just the "Is a revolver any good for combat" thread put forwards a different way?
I opt for the .357 Magnum, due to comfort with the platform (K-frame). Shoot it better than the 1911.

Confederate
April 10, 2008, 12:32 AM
...shoot a full house 357 at night at your pistol range (lights off) without ear muffs, and I guarantee you won't ever do it again!
I've shot both calibers indoors, in subdued light, and without any hearing protection, just to see what it would be like. There was a little ringing in the ears after both shots, but I tried working myself up into a state where I'd hope to have a lot of adrenalin pumping into my system. Probably wouldn't do it again, but it wasn't as bad as I'd thought.

Although I have both, I lean towards the .357. According to Jim Taylor's Levergun Website, which bolsters what I'd heard before: "The .357 did duty in the Korean War and proved very effective at penetrating the body armor worn by Chinese communists. It was also carried during the Vietnam conflict and was used effectively. I have a good friend who is alive today because of his use of a .357 (the gun was given to him by Elmer Keith) on a VC who had homemade armor. The VC shot several men in the compound and was not stopped until my friend got his .357 going. They found later the Viet Cong had metal plates tied in front and on his back. The .45 ACP did not penetrate, but the .357 made holes in and out! It's use as a Police weapon began to be curtailed in the 1960's. It had proven very effective against criminals.... so much so that the protests said it was too effective! Litigation and political pressure caused many Police agencies to look for a weapon that had a 'nicer' public image and little by little the .357 was phased out."
http://www.leverguns.com/articles/taylor/357magnum.htm

Okiecruffler
April 10, 2008, 01:49 PM
I put this one in the 6 of one, half dozen the other catagory. I carry a 45, the good wife carries a snubby 357. I don't think either of us worry too much about it.

researchdoc
April 10, 2008, 03:59 PM
stays together......

You guys are your own militia when going out to dinner...

dagger dog
April 10, 2008, 06:11 PM
I read it in print , can't tell you where or when, but on cases of law enforcment shootings the study I'm quoting said the .357 mag.125 gr JHP beat all others in the study on man stopping, or stopping the gun fight.

Okiecruffler
April 11, 2008, 01:30 AM
You guys are your own militia when going out to dinner...

You should see us practice together at the range. Luckily she's a lefty so we've worked out a way we don't get in each others crossfire.:D

Molasses
April 11, 2008, 07:27 PM
Compromise: :evil:
http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q201/Molasses_photos/Toys/MVC-011F.jpg

Cromlech
April 11, 2008, 07:53 PM
WANT
Very nice, Molasses!

mavracer
April 11, 2008, 08:38 PM
Molasses,
Great idea but I don't have to I got two hands and happen to be very ambi.

coyotehitman
April 11, 2008, 08:45 PM
One of the gun rags had an article comparing the two about 12 years ago. If I recall, the conclusion was that both were adequate and nobody wants to be hit by either.

easyrider6042004@yahoo.ca
April 11, 2008, 10:50 PM
.357 magnum vs. .45 acp? 96% vs. 94 % one-shot stops, respectively.

Same difference. Regardless of caliber, you have to hit the A-zone for best chance of "one-shot stop". Practice with your choice of gun/cartridge.

A good revolver will group as well as a good automatic, a good .357 load is just as effective as a good .45 acp load.

The major variables are the shooter's skill, tactics and gunfighting mindset.

DougDubya
April 11, 2008, 11:42 PM
Molasses has just been entered in my cool book. Coonan for the win.

Rampant_Colt
April 14, 2008, 02:13 AM
.357 magnum vs. .45 acp? 96% vs. 94 % one-shot stops, respectively
You don't actually believe that do you??
It's been debunked as complete rubbish...

Indoors, a .357 will permanently damage your hearing, limit you to 6 rounds capacity [seven in some cases], produce a bright flash, and lots of recoil. That's why i choose a 1911 .45 with 230gr loads

S&Wfan
April 14, 2008, 02:42 AM
Hi,

I own several examples of both calibers and frankly, any of 'em will work about the same if I do my job and put the bullet where it is supposed to go.

Heck, for deep concealment I use a "lowly" .38 snubbie . . . and don't feel under gunned at all with it either.

Still, due to the ease and type of recoil characteristics between the .357 and the .45ACP, the .45 wins hands down in , comfort during recoil and, most important, speed between shots. As others have mentioned, the flash of the .357 can be blinding at night . . . not a good thing during a mortal gun fight.

So . . . my druthers . . . the .45ACP, in either bottom feeder or wheel gun!

http://216.77.188.54/coDataImages/p/Groups/246/246167/folders/233364/20707202X.45acp.jpg

T.

DougDubya
April 14, 2008, 02:45 AM
You don't actually believe that do you??
It's been debunked as complete rubbish...

Complete rubbish?

Sato Ord
April 14, 2008, 10:41 AM
I'm only going to wade in long enough to give my personal opinion. It's just that, my opinion. It has no basis in fact other than personal experience. I've had, unfortunately, occasion to shoot a couple of men with a .45acp. Never had the same experience with a .357 mag (thankfully). The .45 did its job admirably, the only hard evidence I have of that is that I'm the one who is still alive.

My personal preference between the two pistols in a gun fight is simple, the .45acp. Plenty of knock-down, bullet tends to stay in the bg and not keep going into your neighbor's house. Less muzzle flash and noise, good thing at night when the lights are out.

Now, load the 357 with light loads and things start to even up.

The answer is, when your life depends on it, use what you can use effectively, and the hell with anyone who tells you that you don't know your butt from butter milk. It's your butt that's on the line (not someone else's), make sure it stays in one piece.

strat81
April 14, 2008, 10:58 AM
Indoors, a .357 will permanently damage your hearing, limit you to 6 rounds capacity [seven in some cases], produce a bright flash, and lots of recoil. That's why i choose a 1911 .45 with 230gr loads
A 45 won't damage your hearing indoors? News to me.

I love threads like this, it's like arguing about religion and whose God "is more better." Very few facts, lots of emotion and hunches.

Sato Ord
April 14, 2008, 11:02 AM
A 45 won't damage your hearing indoors? News to me.


What?:confused: I didn't quite catch that?!;)

DawgFvr
April 14, 2008, 11:25 AM
The decibel level of a .45 ACP going off in an enclosed environment is far less than a high pressure round like the .357 mag. I, personally, would much prefer using a .45 ACP indoors as to the .357 mag, however, if my life was on the line...hearing loss is not really on the radar screen now is it?

Mr. Designer
April 14, 2008, 11:28 AM
Both will work. I like the .357 for the fact that I can also shoot .38s if I want.

Rampant_Colt
April 14, 2008, 12:01 PM
@ DougDubya - yeah, COMPLETE rubbish:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs31.htm
scroll down towards th bottom and view the links and last paragraph

No handgun gets anywhere near 90% "one shot stops"
The .357 Magnum 96% OSS was invented by Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow to sell some books. Read the link if you don't believe me. Complete BS


A .45 ACP doesn't have a barrel gap and is low pressure compared to the .357..
@ you guys suggesting the .357 isn't louder than he .45, have you ever even fired one?? Doesn't sound like it to me. The .357 makes a large night time fireball and is ear-splittingly LOUD

There's no contest here which one is better

mbt2001
April 14, 2008, 12:05 PM
Big slow moving bullet, versus faster smaller bullet. It is an age old debate.

I agree that the .45 and .357 have very little difference when hitting an un-armored target. Shooting through walls, cars, armor the edge goes to the .357. Shooting at night, double taps, faster reloads the edge goes to the .45.

So, which do you need? At the house I have a .357 mag loaded and at the ready. I use a revolver because FTF (failure to feed) isn't a problem that revolvers usually have. They don't jam and you always know when they are loaded and can secure them quickly. Also, there is a lot of cover in a house... If the bad guy were to jump behind the sofa, the .357 will give him no refuge. Same with a door jam.

I also have electronic ear muffs, they transmit the sounds, they cut off when I fire. I think the sound + fireball inside a house would cause the perp to faint.

Rampant Colt, there are a lot of "studies" out there. The .357 has been used by cops for years and is a good man stopper and a reliable round. The .45 ACP is an analogue of the .45 colt. Both of these rounds have been tested extensively under battlefield conditions and are reliable man stoppers. The "history" edge goes to the .45, but it also is very complimentary of the .357.

texagun
April 14, 2008, 12:23 PM
2) Shot placement is what truly counts in a gunfight, regardless of diameter, weight or powder charge. I know guys who've won gunfights with .32's. Train, train, train!

Neither round will knock a human being off their feet, nor will it send them flying across the room. Come to think of it, few small arms will.

So...at the end of the day, stick with what you shoot well.



"Shot placement is primary, adequate penetration is secondary. Anything else is just angels dancing on the head of a pin."

DougDubya
April 14, 2008, 12:57 PM
Rampant Colt - your study is just about shooting tastless dessert confection.

When there are autopsies on record of a human heart being shattered into two pieces by a .357 Magnum, I'm generally going to say that the .357 is pretty effective.

Also, kindly note, if Marshall were trying to make one-shot stops with handguns an actual strategy, he wouldn't be carrying three handguns on his person most of the time. Considering he packs a Beretta Storm, a Glock 26 and a pocket .357 revolver, he's got 32 shots before he has to reload.

That doesn't sound like someone who endorses one shot stops as a tactic.

texagun
April 14, 2008, 01:05 PM
Also, kindly note, if Marshall were trying to make one-shot stops with handguns an actual strategy, he wouldn't be carrying three handguns on his person most of the time. Considering he packs a Beretta Storm, a Glock 26 and a pocket .357 revolver, he's got 32 shots before he has to reload.


I've read that he carries 3 guns on his person daily. Isn't that being a bit paranoid?? He's not in active law enforcement....he is retired.

mavracer
April 14, 2008, 01:23 PM
I've read that he carries 3 guns on his person daily. Isn't that being a bit paranoid??
wouldn't think so he's got three guns what should he be afraid of.

DougDubya
April 14, 2008, 01:25 PM
Marshall worked Detroit homicide and Detroit SWAT for over a quarter of a century and he hasn't retired from training feds, cops and soldiers. If you saw that many corpses and made that many arrests, it wouldn't be paranoia per se, it would be a case of real life experience and enemies made.

MrPeter
April 14, 2008, 02:21 PM
Pros and cons in my book. You can judge for yourself:

.357 Magnum PROS

Proven effective self defense round
Flat Trajectory
More power/energy (not the same as stopping power)
Arguably more reliable since forced to choose revolver as opposed to autoloader


.357 Magnum CONS

Usually lower mag capacity (revolvers)
Usually limited to revolvers (revolvers aren't bad, but the limitation of only being able to choose them is a CON)
- Due to revolvers only (mostly), slower reload for most people
- Due to revolvers only (mostly), limited to DA for quick followup shots (CON for some not for others)
Depending on load may have greater chance of overpenetration
Smaller permanent cavity in target
Blinding in dark, and deafening, esp indoors
Depending on the gun, from hard to obscene recoil (more difficult for follow up shots)


.45 Auto PROS:

Proven effective self-defense round
Softer recoil (again, depending on gun)
- as a result: quicker, and more accurate follow up shots
Usually higher magazine capacity
Larger permanent cavity in target
Lower chance of overpenetration (again depending on load)
Choice of both autoloading and revolver platforms
- Resulting in further options to make the gun more comfortable for you; (choice of SA/DA, DA/SA, DAO, SAO, etc., manual saftey, passive saftey, etc.)
Not quite as blinding or deafening, but certainly no whipser.


.45 Auto CONS:

Arguably less reliable if chosen platform is autoloading
Heavy arc in trajectory for longer ranges (barely applicable in SD situation)


This list changes if you include the 357 SIG round, of course.

For me, the chance that there may be some overpenetration with the .357 round is an automatic trump. I'm sure I couldn't live with myself if a self-defense shooting took the life of an innocent with my bullet, regardless of the legal implications.
That said, if you can't shoot a round accurately enough to hit your target, you're even worse off than if you overpenetrated. If you want to go with .357 mag, go ahead, but make sure you can hit your target consistently, and choose a responsible JHP load.

That said, my ideal carry rig is an XD.45 loaded with 13+1 Golden Sabres, and my second favorite is my CZ 75 in .40 with 12+1 of Golden Sabres. However, the XD is too large to be easily concealed at work, and the CZ-75 is too heavy, and pulls my pants right off of me as I walk. So, I usually carry a .38 special +P S&W snubbie with a hollowpoint load which can and will expand in a target, giving me as much comfort as possible. Sometimes we have to go with what is less than ideal because we live in the real world.

Hope that helps.

Rampant_Colt
April 14, 2008, 02:28 PM
I am not doubting the effectiveness of the .357, i'm pointing out the fact that people actually believe that handguns produce 90% 'stopping power' which is complete BS. That type of thinking may get a good guy killed!

The link i posted above is more than just gelatin results. Evidently you [Doug Dubya] didn't bother to read past the first paragraph.
M&S have been discredited by credible ballisticians for their blatant and outright lies in these three books.
http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/2559/stoppingpowermu6.jpg

Evan Marshall carrying multiple guns doesn't change my mind about their 'studies'

And i agree for the most part with MrPeter above

Philbacca
April 14, 2008, 02:53 PM
When you take into account +P rounds that takes the .45 up a noch. You can get anywhere from 950-1250 fps depending on the grain. I love the .357 but 13 +p .45s in my H&K is hard to beat!

golden
April 14, 2008, 05:01 PM
RAMPANT COLT,

I started a thread earlier on this subject. NO ONE, NOT A SINGE PERSON COULD SHOW ANYTHING TO DISPROVE THE STATISICS FROM MARSHALL!

Martin FACKLER and the FACKLERITES has run a name calling contest and nothing else. No evidence was presented.

If you can show otherwise, please do. Nothing in firearmstactical that I read was even close.

Jim

mavracer
April 14, 2008, 05:32 PM
Marshall Not Disproven By Anyone
actually he disproves himself.He does not use any stats where more than one round is fired. IE one shot failed and had to fire again.

PS. this fact was brought up in the 2nd post of your thread.

un_lucky
April 14, 2008, 05:47 PM
Rampant colt
It looks to me that your opinion is based on one website. Maybe you should go to Stoppingpower.net and do some reading.

Rampant_Colt
April 14, 2008, 05:54 PM
RAMPANT COLT,

I started a thread earlier on this subject. NO ONE, NOT A SINGE PERSON COULD SHOW ANYTHING TO DISPROVE THE STATISICS FROM MARSHALL!

Martin FACKLER and the FACKLERITES has run a name calling contest and nothing else. No evidence was presented.

If you can show otherwise, please do. Nothing in firearmstactical that I read was even close.

Jim
Can you produce these alleged statistics? Bet ya can't 'cause they just don't exist! Please link me to this thread so i can add my input. I have all three books and can attest firsthand to the typos, misinformation and outright lies
http://www.firearmstactical.com/afte.htm
The link i posted on page 3 shows three different people qualified in the study of ballistics and statistics prove M&S statistics are a hoax. Duncan MacPherson, Martin Fackler, Dr Gary Roberts and Maarten van Maanen all discredit those Stopping Power books
You obviously didn't bother to look at the link either.

ETA - i read page one of that thread and got a good laugh.
ps - it's 10mm -NOT- 10m.m
read more post less

Ignorance is bliss

Rampant_Colt
April 14, 2008, 06:04 PM
Rampant colt
It looks to me that your opinion is based on one website. Maybe you should go to Stoppingpower.net and do some reading.
Ed, is that you?

I've looked at that site and drew my own conclusion that it's a waste of time.

More information in THIS (http://www.ar15.com/content/page.html?id=237) thread than that whole site. THIS (http://www.ar15.com/content/page.html?id=208) page has tons of good info on the subject as well. I don't get my information off of one website.


If you want to study about terminal wound ballistics i suggest studying THIS (http://www.firearmstactical.com/bulletpenetration.htm) book for useful information on the subject

moooose102
April 14, 2008, 06:25 PM
6 of one, half dozen of another. either will stop a person admirably. but i would not use a full blown 357 magnum in doors at night for home defense. if you miss, it will take way to much time to be able to see to get a second shot off. i do not know if they make a self defense round for the 357 or not. either way, with a revolver, you have two flash points. one at the end of the barrel, and the other at the gap between the cylinder and forcing cone (barrel). if you have ever shot a 357 @ night, you will notice both. the end of the barrel is much more impressive though. also, .357 would probably go clean through your assailant, so if there are loved ones on the other side of the wall, well, lets just say, that's not a good thing.

texagun
April 14, 2008, 06:25 PM
It has been shown over and over again that neither Marshall nor Sanow have any scientific background at all, and therefore, their "scientific studies" are seriously flawed because of the methods they used. They claimed they interviewed pathologists and police officers and autopsy technicians to get their data. Their primary source of information as stated in Volume I was "police-action shooting reports." Many who they claimed to have interviewed don't even remember talking to them.
Their "statistics" don't even consider follow-up shots or multiple hits and their definition of "stopping power" is that "the victim must be unable to continue hostile acts toward anyone, even if determined to do so." Even though their "scientific method" leaves something to be desired, their books are a good starting point in determining some of the most effective ammunition available to the public. Their percentage figures may not be right on the money, but the trends in their data do point towards what may be some of the most effective ammunition available. I also have all 3 of their books and they are worth reading for those interested in the subject. As far as 357 Magnum vs. 45 ACP, if I recall correctly, Marshall and Sanow state the 125 grain 357 Magnum hollowpoint is the most effective round that they have found in a handgun.


"Bullet placement is primary, adequate penetration is secondary, everything else is angels dancing on the head of a pin."

Rampant_Colt
April 14, 2008, 06:47 PM
It has been shown over and over again that neither Marshall nor Sanow have any scientific background at all, and therefore, their "scientific studies" are seriously flawed because of the methods they used.

I also have all 3 of their books and they are worth reading for those interested in the subject. As far as 357 Magnum vs. 45 ACP, if I recall correctly, Marshall and Sanow state the 125 grain 357 Magnum hollowpoint is the most effective round that they have found in a handgun
you can't have it both ways
First you discredit them, then you say it's worth reading.. Well which is it?

M&S aren't the first to make the claim that the .357 Magnum is an effective cartridge - they just hyped it up with their wild claims of "96% One Shot Stops" [using 125gr JHP bullets]
They DID, however, make the claim that the .45 ACP 230gr Federal Hydra-Shok gets 100% OSS when used in 5" inch barrels:
http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/6615/fighters2741yo8.jpg
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/8738/fighters2671jk9.jpg
Taken from July 1996 issue of Peterson's Handguns magazine
100% one shot stops, folks. There you have it. All you need is a 5" barrel handgun and you've achieved perfection LoL
:D

Wheeler
April 14, 2008, 06:55 PM
I don't know about speeds, penetration, ore terminal ballistics, what I do know is, when shooting with a friend, my .357 was making a two foot by three foot steel plate almost fall off the stand, while his .45 was making it wiggle a little. For what it's worth, I was shooting factory 158 grain flat nose bullets in a target load, he was shooting 230 grain lead semi wadcutters in a target load. His 1911 has a 5" barrel, my 686 has a 3" barrel. We were both double tapping at 15 yards. No timer, I can't tell you splits or who was faster. Accuracy was equivilant with both pistols.

mbt2001
April 14, 2008, 07:10 PM
Indoors, a .357 will permanently damage your hearing, limit you to 6 rounds capacity [seven in some cases], produce a bright flash, and lots of recoil. That's why i choose a 1911 .45 with 230gr loads

Indoors any gun can damage your hearing... The levels between a .357 and .45 and (the much advised) 12 gauge are virtually the same...

The muzzle flash is an issue, but it is also a psychological weapon. Even if you miss, the roar and the belch of 6" of flame would have the perp wanting to leave instead of possible die. The 12 gauge is similar in terms of noise, recoil and flash... The .45 depending on the ammo (anything other than .230 grain ball) and even some of those can produce a decent flash, using corbons for instance....

Capacity of the 1911 is something like 7 - 8... not a huge gain. Either is fine. Both are good. Shoot one from each hand... ;)

DougDubya
April 14, 2008, 07:56 PM
Rampant Colt - I no longer have time for your personal attacks and obfuscation.

Shoot all the jello you want. Fabricate all manner of excuses. Marshall doesn't teach one shot stop shooting and has been on SWAT callouts, and has been lead investigator in 25 years of Detroit murders. While I am not going to take his one shot stop results as an excuse to only fire one shot in self defense, calling him a liar is slander and a personal attack.

As such, your worth as a commentator has now been entirely negated in my eyes. Consider yourself irrelevant.

texagun
April 14, 2008, 08:15 PM
Rampant Colt Stated:
They DID, however, make the claim that the .45 ACP 230gr Federal
Hydra-Shok gets 100% OSS when used in 5" inch barrels:


Since I have all 3 book written by Marshal and Sanow, perhaps you could give me the volume and page number for your statement. I find no such statement in any of their books. The 3nd volume (updated and latest data available at the time) shows the .45 230gr Federal Hydra-Shok as a 96% stopper.

Rampant_Colt
April 14, 2008, 08:18 PM
Rampant Colt - I no longer have time for your personal attacks and obfuscation.

Shoot all the jello you want. Fabricate all manner of excuses. Marshall doesn't teach one shot stop shooting and has been on SWAT callouts, and has been lead investigator in 25 years of Detroit murders. While I am not going to take his one shot stop results as an excuse to only fire one shot in self defense, calling him a liar is slander and a personal attack.

As such, your worth as a commentator has now been entirely negated in my eyes. Consider yourself irrelevant.
"Obfuscation" ? LoL - how long have you been waiting to slip that into a sentence?

Do you have any of their books, or have you read them? Doesn't sound like it to me..
Whether EM was on SWAT 'callouts' or lead investigator, doesn't change the fact that the information provided in those three books is false and misleading [more slander].

I'm neither a jello-junkie or morgue-monster, so don't label me as such.

If you won't talk to me anymore i think i'll get over it - maybe i'll even see you at Midwest Sporting Goods or Buffalo Rock and we can be fwiends again

ps - when you see Ed or Evan, tell them i want my $39.95 back :p
[the other two books were given to me as gifts]

Rampant_Colt
April 14, 2008, 08:21 PM
Since I have all 3 book written by Marshal and Sanow, perhaps you could give me the volume and page number for your statement. I find no such statement in any of their books. The 3nd volume (updated and latest data available at the time) shows the .45 230gr Federal Hydra-Shok as a 96% stopper
R I F

as i stated in my post above, "taken from the July 1996 Peterson's Handguns"

The Canuck
April 14, 2008, 08:22 PM
Shot Placement

DougDubya
April 14, 2008, 08:37 PM
Rampant Colt - sorry 'bout that. I keep forgetting, this is just the internets. 'Sides, Marshall can protect himself... three handguns and a rifle in the car do that. I too have mentioned the imperfect science of their form of statistical sampling. Sorry for accusing you of being a morgue monkey or a jello junky.

'Sides, I'm a nine junky.

I also let my FOID lapse years ago when the price went up to $15 a year. As such, I just bounce around there if there seems to be something interesting in airsoft. I reserve my shootin' money for free states, like my trips to Utah. The airsoft stuff at Midwest, though, is beautiful.

Girlfriend + guns, for the win.

DougDubya
April 14, 2008, 08:39 PM
PS - I don't care much for Ed, and I actually use obfuscation quite often. That's the trouble with writing for a living. You end up using your $10 words more often.

Rampant_Colt
April 14, 2008, 08:51 PM
It's all good.
In the end we're all on the same team trying to help each other out; even if it's something we may disagree on. We're splitting hairs here - LoL - both the .357 and .45 will put a hurtin' on any badguy with proper shot placement :)

To be honest, when "IT" hits the fan at 2am, i'm reaching for the shotgun! :neener:

DougDubya
April 14, 2008, 09:09 PM
As uncle Jeff said, the purpose of the sidearm is to let you reach your longarm, which shouldn't have been set down in the first place. :D

.30-06 or 12 gauge > .45 or .357.

Though, a semi-auto Thompson or a lever action .357 wouldn't be too bad either....

stevereno1
April 14, 2008, 11:36 PM
Either!!!!

Mastiff
April 15, 2008, 12:11 AM
I'll get in on this one by throwing in a ringer. The 9x23 Winchester has the same ballistics as the 357 Magnum in a cartridge that easily fits autoloaders. I am shooting it out of a Star Super A, which is a Spanish 1911 clone. I get the best of both worlds. I get the ballistics of the 357 with less recoil, less muzzle flash, 8+1 capacity and faster reloads and quicker follow up shots.
OK, fire away.

DougDubya
April 15, 2008, 02:15 AM
Oddball cartirdges rule.

I miss the .38 Super.

mbt2001
April 15, 2008, 02:37 PM
In the end we're all on the same team trying to help each other out; even if it's something we may disagree on. We're splitting hairs here - LoL - both the .357 and .45 will put a hurtin' on any badguy with proper shot placement

+1

mavracer
April 15, 2008, 03:05 PM
I miss the .38 Super.
see'n as I have 2 I don't miss it ( don't miss much with it either) just wish speer (or anybody else) would load it with some golddots

DougDubya
April 15, 2008, 03:47 PM
Jealousy, mav. I has it. :D (Sorry for the lolcat lapse.)

I like the look of the Cor-bon loadings.

mbt2001
April 17, 2008, 10:11 PM
I miss the .38 Super.

I love that round. Border Bravo all the way! :p

neviander
April 19, 2008, 11:52 PM
shoot a full house 357 at night at your pistol range (lights off) without ear muffs, and i guarantee you wont ever do it again!
Holy crap, I shot a .357 out of a 6" barrell without ear protection...never again, I was literally deaf for a whole day.

golden
April 21, 2008, 10:03 PM
RAMPANT COLT,

It is interesting how you tell everyone else to read. You should try it yourself.

I do not have to quote you statistics, remember, you said you HAD ALL 3 BOOKS. They are in there.

Along with the .45ACP Hydro Shok article, MASHALL also noted that the original 9m.m. 147 grain load had 10 one shot stops in a row. He added that he did not know if that meant it was a great stopper or was an anomoly.
We now know that it was an anomoly because it was used for military type sentry removals and as predicted, it is a poor round on the street.
OH WAIT, MARTIN FACKLER SAID IT WOULD BE A GOOD ROUND. HOW COME IT DOES NOT WORK BETTER THAN THE +P+ 115 and 124 grain loads? PLEASE READ THAT ONE! What are the statistics in firearmstactical.com?
How does fmj stack up against Hydro Shok in firearmstactical?

Hey maybe they can shoot some more milk cartons. Is that the scientific method? If you missed that one, it was a test of two .38 Special rounds fired from a snub nosed revolver.

Also, MARSHALL pointed out that .45ACP 100% was not correct. It had occured and he commented on it, questioning whether it was also an anomoly.

I hope I do not offend any other poster on this thread. I simply felt that comment written in the same manner as your postings was in order for a reply.

Jim

Joe the Redneck
April 21, 2008, 10:14 PM
OK, this is my standard answer.

I'll get my model 19 and my Norinco 1911a1, you go stand by the tree. :)

Seriously, the threads are just so pointless.

JTR

jjduller1946
April 21, 2008, 11:42 PM
Which is best for personal defense? Which one packs the hardest punch? Are they pretty much equal when it comes to stopping power?


I have a 45 Auto and two 357s. I prefer the 2 inch 357 for CC.
I have a scope on the 8 inch Ruger for hunting. The 45 usually stays home unless I am going to shoot. But this is just me - this is a very personal thing, IMHO.

I prefer the Ruger SP 101 revolver for my personal defense because it is easy to carry and is adrenalin proof.

Which packs the hardest punch – I am including a graph that compares the highest energy rounds from Federal’s excellent 2007 Ammunition & Ballistics Catalog. At muzzle, the 357 generates 55% more energy than the highest energy Federal 45 Auto round. That is what I would call 'no where near equal' unless you are playing hand grenades or horseshoes!

Still the 45 is a great round and so is the 357 Mag. The best? Depends!:)

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll39/jdfuller19461946/Guns/357over45.jpg

rdrancher
April 22, 2008, 01:51 AM
Five pages?

I knew I picked a bad decade to stop sniffing glue...

rd

easyg
April 22, 2008, 10:34 AM
I can't say which is more effective against humans, but I can tell you which is more pleasant to shoot for long periods of time (from similar weight/size handguns).....

I'll take the .45ACP.

Rampant_Colt
April 22, 2008, 11:29 AM
Along with the .45ACP Hydro Shok article, MASHALL also noted that the original 9m.m. 147 grain load had 10 one shot stops in a row. He added that he did not know if that meant it was a great stopper or was an anomoly.
We now know that it was an anomoly because it was used for military type sentry removals and as predicted, it is a poor round on the street.
OH WAIT, MARTIN FACKLER SAID IT WOULD BE A GOOD ROUND. HOW COME IT DOES NOT WORK BETTER THAN THE +P+ 115 and 124 grain loads? PLEASE READ THAT ONE! What are the statistics in firearmstactical.com?
How does fmj stack up against Hydro Shok in firearmstactical?

Hey maybe they can shoot some more milk cartons. Is that the scientific method? If you missed that one, it was a test of two .38 Special rounds fired from a snub nosed revolver.
I can't believe i'm going to even dignify this post with an answer -- read more and post less, golden

ps - it's 9mm, NOT 9m.m

Ruger1280
April 23, 2008, 01:06 AM
More powder, more velocity equals more whomp.

Energy = Mass x Velocity(squared)

I'd say the .357 Magnum has more power.

But is it better for defense ? ? ? ?

There are more intangible variables in the question of defense.
I have to say, I don't know ......

Which do YOU shoot best?

Dave

gallo
April 24, 2008, 02:26 PM
I love these caliber wars. I got my flame suit on and a can of gasoline on my hand to keep the fire going. So let me begin by saying that imho both calibers are past their prime and a bit obsolete. I prefer the universal 9mm over any other hand gun caliber but that's subject matter for a different thread.

Everyone knows deep inside that the .357 is better man-stopper, but let's assume for the sake of this topic that both calibers are equal. The .45 has the following advantages over the .357:

Cheaper ammo
Faster follow-up shots
More bullets in the clip
Faster reload
Less noise and muzzle flash

If you are expecting the end of the world with wild hogs running rampant through the streets, then a .357 may be justified but a rifle would be much better.

On a related note, a gun alone does not make for a complete defense system. A combination of a good alarm, lighting, solid door and dead bolts, and constant personal awareness when away from home go a lot farther in keeping you safe than any hand cannon. If the gun is the founding rock of your home/personal defense, then I say your defense is flawed and bound to fail. Allowing an attack onto oneself or property, even if the attack is fended off, is already a defeat since a weakness in one's person was exploited. So the best advise is to avert the attack and if it's unavoidable use a gun. The caliber is the most irrelevant piece of the puzzle.

RobG5538
April 24, 2008, 02:33 PM
ALL research and tests show that nothing stops a bad guy better than the .357 mag. END OF STORY!

RobG5538
April 24, 2008, 02:35 PM
ALL research and tests show that nothing stops a bad guy better than the
.45 acp. END OF STORY!














:neener:

Crow1108
April 24, 2008, 02:53 PM
I prefer faster reloads. .45 for me.

lilreddakota
October 20, 2009, 05:34 PM
After reading everyone's post from last year just want to ask if you all feel the same. We can now get a S&W in 8 shots so does Taurus. I have a both a 1911 in 45 ACP. and a 7 shot .357 Magnum. If I were woken from a dead sleep I would go for the Revolver, why you ask? Its a double action ready to go at a moments notice, I don't keep my 1911 in condition 1 when its not on my body, so I would think reaction time would be cut down with the Revolver, but don't know not an expert. New powders have I would think eliminate the problem of the flash at night, the only problem I think you still have with the .357 is over pentration, might go with a .38+p for the revolver, better yet would opt for my Ruger Vaqero in 45 Colt but that would just add to a whole new aurgument,

627PCFan
October 20, 2009, 05:37 PM
Dude the threads over a year old. :what:

NMGonzo
October 20, 2009, 06:53 PM
I don't want to be shot with anything.

.45 vs .357?

The best would be the one I have quicker access.

One is in my drawer at work, the other one is on my waist.

03Shadowbob
October 20, 2009, 08:19 PM
Whenever I read one of these versus threads, I always ask myself which one would I rather be shot with IF I had to be shot with one. In the case, I choose the 45. .357 is a nasty nasty round.

billybob44
October 20, 2009, 10:04 PM
I prefer faster reloads. .45 for me.
Put the hits on Center Mass==Don't need re-loads??

orionengnr
October 20, 2009, 10:26 PM
Wow, I read five pages to see who would ressucitate a long dead thread. Seems like every time, it's a first time poster.

As I suspected, this was once again the case.

Never quite understood it, but it happens so often that it's not a coincidence. I think this is the third such thread that I've noted and commented on this week, and it's only Tuesday.

Is it that hard to have an original thought?

Anyway, if anyone still cares....
I own, carry and shoot both. I prefer the .45acp, but am quite content with a .357 Mag. There was a time when I owned more .357s than any other caliber. These days most of my revolvers are chambered in calibers that "start with a .4", as are nearly all of my semiautos. I only own three .357s these days, but I carried my S&W M-66 this weekend. However, this week my companion has been an M25-2 3" revolver in .45acp.

christcorp
October 20, 2009, 10:36 PM
You took the two BEST calibers in two different formats, and are trying to compare them. Apples & Mangos. If you prefer revolvers, shoot the 357 magnum. If you prefer semi-auto, go with the 45acp. Other factors:

1) There is no such thing as "Stopping Power" with a hand gun. Especially among calibers. A 22LR between the eyes will probably "STOP" the person on contact.
2) The objective to shooting someone, is to STOP them from harming you. That doesn't mean the person being shot has to die; just simply STOP harming you.
3) The larger the caliber, the bigger the hole going in. Thereby the POTENTIAL for more tissue damage and blood loss.
4) What the bullet does once it being entering a person, will determine if "ADDITIONAL" damage can be achieved. I.e. if the bullet EXPANDS, as in a Hollow Point, then you have a larger object internally, causing more damage.
5) A 357 at max expansion, can not be larger than a 45 at max expansion. It's not physically possible, assuming both bullets expand as intended. Therefor, the 45 will have a larger area to cause potentially more damage.
6) The area whereby the 357 magnum become more effective over a 45acp, is the one area that most people DON'T want to happen. Because of it's velocity, a 357 can penetrate more than the 45acp. To the point where it's possible to exit the body. At which point, you have the "Effect" of 2 bullet holes and twice the potential for blood loss; reduction in blood pressure; and thus loss of consciousness. But you also risk the possibility of accidental contact with another person once the bullet exits.
7) If not using full load 357 magnum ammo, and instead are using less velocity, 38spl or 38spl+P; which many people do; then the argument is totally moot, because then you aren't actually shooting a 357 magnum anyway.

Readyrod
October 21, 2009, 07:53 AM
A while ago I read up about a lot of shootouts on Wikipedia like the North Hollywood Shootout. I know it's not the same as home defense but I noticed a few things. The number of bullets shot was high. There were lots of mentions of reloading, running out of bullets, and people getting shot when out of ammo, reloading or when their guns jammed. That would point to an semiautomatic. The other thing was that the guys with the rifles were in a stronger position. So maybe the saying about a handgun being what you use to get to your rifle has some truth to it. The last thing that surprised me was the way fluke shots helped, like that guy in the Hollywood shootout who got shot in the thumb.

kanook
October 21, 2009, 10:44 AM
Dude the threads over a year old. It appears that he was wondering if they had changed their mind after a year. Some people do.Wow, I read five pages to see who would ressucitate a long dead thread. Seems like every time, it's a first time poster.

As I suspected, this was once again the caseAnd he states that he is aware that the thread is a year old. Did you remember to say Hello or did you just go into bashing mode for brining up the dead thread?

As a shooting community we should be willing to answer all questions no matter how many times it has been asked. We should be happy that we have a new shooter and not a gungrabber.

Welcome to THR

texagun
October 21, 2009, 10:53 AM
And he states that he is aware that the thread is a year old. Did you remember to say Hello or did you just go into bashing mode for brining up the dead thread?

As a shooting community we should be willing to answer all questions no matter how many times it has been asked. We should be happy that we have a new shooter and not a gungrabber.

Welcome to THR

My thoughts exactly.

WELCOME TO THE FORUM...........

RX-178
October 21, 2009, 11:00 AM
I'd say that a .357 magnum revolver is a more versatile weapon, however more versatile doesn't always equal 'more effective'.

The .357 magnum in my experience shoots flatter, and I would say is more effective at longer ranges than a .45 Auto, as long as you're using lighter bullets (under 200 grains in both weapons). With heavier bullets, they even out a bit, and I would venture to say most people would use heavy bullets as defensive rounds.

The part where the .357 revolver gains versatility is that you can carry lighter, higher velocity rounds on your person, and load those rounds into the cylinder if they're needed. You can change the kind of ammunition in a .45 by changing the magazine and racking the slide, but as I said, lighter .45 ACP loads generally don't have as much reach as the lighter .357 Magnum (barring some inventive handloading of course. :D).

The odds of this being a factor in any situation where you may have to use the weapon to defend your life? Absolutely miniscule. I personally carry a .45 because I like carrying my weapons in condition 1. I think the .45 is much more than adequate in dealing with any threat I have any likelyhood of encountering.

REX6859
October 21, 2009, 11:06 AM
Hello.
Pump shotgun HANDS DOWN WINNER

golden
October 21, 2009, 12:37 PM
Given a choice of a .357 magnum revolver or .45ACP semi-auto, it would come down to the choice of which gun and which ammo and what I intend to use it for.

For concealed carry, a 5 shot RUGER or 3 inch barreled .357 K-frame is a good carry. I would load it with 110 grain JHP and be happy.

I have not found the mini-1911 models to be 100% reliable and would stick with the revolver. The COMMANDER size guns work fine and SIG 220 is great, but both are bulky for concealment.
This would not be a problem in a colder climate, but I live in Florida.


For a house gun or maybe a car gun, I would prefer the .45ACP is a steel framed pistol loaded with HYDRO-SHOK. If I had only ball ammo, I might go with the above revolver or something larger like the S&W L-frame with a 4 inch.
I used a 4 inch S&W 681 with a Magna-ported barrel and have total confidence in it.

For hunting, a six inch L-frame hands down. I already this baby with Magna-ports and a slick action. I would used either the 158 grain or 180 grain ammo. Neither expands all that much, but should penetrate deeply, even on deer or hogs.


My preferred choice in defense guns would be a plastic or aluminum framed 9m.m. with +P 115 or 124 grain JHP followed by a .40 S&W caliber if I expected to be out in the field where a long shot might have to be made.

I would use a .41 or .44 magnum for hunting given a choice.

Jim

emb
October 21, 2009, 02:29 PM
I sometimes carry each one. It depends on what I'm doing and where I am. A .45 ACP is easily concealed in an IWB holster and is very comfortable. My .357 has a 4" barrel and is equally comfortable to carry but a whole lot less concealable. However, I have the utmost confidence in both. I do tend to take my .357 where I might have to shoot longer ranges. I always take it when I travel even though I may also be carrying a .45.

Ditto on Texagun's comment. Welcome to the Forum!

Mr. T
October 21, 2009, 02:41 PM
With regard to power the .357 Mag beats the .45 hands down. There is also a test called the TKO or Taylor Knock Out value. I don't have the formula for it right in front of me, but if you google it I'm sure you can find it. That is supposed to remedy the difference in bullet size and energy, to determine which load is the most effective. I hope this helps

middy
October 21, 2009, 03:13 PM
According to the Taylor Knock Out value, a baseball thrown at 100 mph is twice as effective as a .458 Win Mag with 500gr bullet (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=9274).

It's a meaningless calculation.

9x19sig
October 21, 2009, 10:31 PM
.357 Fed or Rem 125 grain.

.45 is a sissy compromise for those who are afraid to lose their hearing.

SharpsDressedMan
October 21, 2009, 11:17 PM
S&W model 13 (3 in barrel) - length 8 inches, weight 32oz. / Colt LW Commander length 8" weight 26oz (the steel Combat Commander is 33oz). I chose these two as they represent a median for hand filling, controllable, reasonably concealable examples of the .357 and .45. To me, they would probably conceal about the same, given a quality belt and holster. A person could easily find smaller or lighter guns for both calibers, or heavier ones for that matter, but these two represent a compromise that everyone can work from. I could live with either as a defensive gun, but favor the .45 because it cuts a larger wound channel (at least initially), and does so with a lot less muzzle blast than a healthy .357 loading. After firing .357's in tight places, I like the .45 more and more. In any case, to choose the .357 for defense and to feel armed superior to the .45, you'd have to use full .357 loadings, and not lesser .38+P. The .45 clearly outclasses the .38. The choice is yours. Borrow a .45 and .357 (full loads) and be your own judge.

ThePants
October 21, 2009, 11:30 PM
.45 is a sissy compromise for those who are afraid to lose their hearing.

haha! But with the .357 how are you going to know if someone is breaking into your house at night during your next home invasion?

sheepdog
October 21, 2009, 11:58 PM
...books, schmooks!!! Let's try common sense...bullet placement being the first requirement...if you can put 3 in the right place with a .357 quickly, go for it...I can't...so I load 158gr .38Spl +P LHP by Rem into my GP100 3", and have into all my .357s for years...my hearing was shattered by a snub M19 going off in a police car-a Norma 158 gr. JHP...we couldn't hear for 3 days after...I don't need that much noise/flash/power, unless it's in at least an 18" bbl...I prefer a .45, with 230 Gr. JHP Gold Dots...but the superround in a lot of the tests-the Hydrashock- didn't do the job in at least one case where the perp was hit through a light shirt, missing his heart by a coupla inches...he walked out to the squad car-and sat waiting for the meat wagon...no more Hydrashocks for me...I would confidently face someone who couldn't shoot well with even a .22LRHP...whichever gun you can place shots with best...go for it...I don't belittle a man's weapon even if I've seen him shoot with it....it's not the weapon that ultimately finishes the fight...it's the man....

Confederate
October 22, 2009, 01:36 AM
My, my, my...look at all the responses. The .357 packs the greatest punch and works well in putting down deer at up to 100 yards. The .45 has a trajectory like a bowling ball, but offers good penetration and stopping power.

If I had but one shot, and knew I had to put down a bad guy who was going to rip my head off, I'd have to pick a .357 125gr JHP. I'd feel very comfortable, however, with a .45 ACP 185gr JHP, which I consider the best .45 load.

denfoote
October 23, 2009, 06:47 PM
The .357mag was originally designed to take out engine blocks.

The .45acp was originally designed to take out Moro zombies.

Now, while I've never seen or heard of any zombies driving cars, in the interest of being prepared, I'd rather take out the zombie's car first, if you know what I mean. ;)

win-lose
October 23, 2009, 11:22 PM
I'd rather defend with a 45 acp then a 357 magnum round. The flash, noise and recoil of a 357 are a huge tactical disadvantage. Couple that with the bigger hole made by the 45 acp and I'm sold.

inSight-NEO
October 24, 2009, 12:27 AM
Hardest punch between the two? Id say a .357 Magnum loaded with "full house" 125 grain Federal JHP (357B).

However, is this a "practical" load for HD? Opinions vary, but many seem to lean towards the "no" category. Hence, while not offering the "lightning strike" of the 125 Magnum loads, I still prefer .45 ACP JHP overall as I feel its a more controllable, "practical" load while still offering maximum stopping power.


.45 is a sissy compromise for those who are afraid to lose their hearing.

This is a dumb statement. There is absolutely nothing "sissy" about the .45 ACP round. Hearing issues aside, controllability/practicality has as much to do with it as anything else. If this were not the case, then we would all probably be using .44 Magnums or S&W 500s for HD.

Try educating yourself before making such blatant statements.

Fiv3r
October 24, 2009, 10:50 AM
I'd feel fine with either or:) I like .45's, but I generally carry a .357 revolver. My main reason being that I don't own a .45 yet, and I'm not made of money. The .357 allows me handle different load outs for practice and protection.
I generally load it up with .38 special for daily carry and protection and .357 mag when going out into the woods (cat country). I carry a back up speed loader of .357 in both situations. Muzzle flash and hearing loss are not any concern for me as for HD duty I have a shotgun. If I ever HAVE to fire a .357 unmuffed, well then my ears ringing are going to be the least of my concerns.

Like I said, I like .45s. I've just practiced more with .38/.357 and feel that it suits my current needs better. Six shots of either out of a 4" barrel go right where I tell them to...mostly:o

BlindJustice
October 24, 2009, 05:41 PM
doesn't surprize me this thread has gone on for pages
haven't read any of it except the first post today.

I think the first .357 Mag versus .45 ACP article I read
was in Guns & Ammo in the late '60s.

D.D.S.O.S.

All depends on the situation, and personal preference and
what the one is the user can hit the target with.

Had a 686P 4" bbl. - at the range with full house .357 Mag
loads, what was it my shooting buddy siad -"at least 2.5" feet of
muzzle blast and it was slower in recoil recovery for ME than
my 1911 as well as my 625 5" Bbl. .45 ACP +P ( or .45 Auto RIm 250 gr.
@ 900 FPS ). Sold it to a good friend who likes it better than
his 29 - arthritic wrists.

I also have a S&W Model 60 3" Bbl. .357 Mag but the
HD/SD ammo for it is Double Tap .38 Special +P 125 gr. Gold
DOts. I wouldn't want to light off a .357 Mag inside a
building. Heck with the velocity loss for a .357 mag a
good 9mm luger has it all over those shortie Bbl. revos.

Fanning the flames

Randall

SWAddict
October 26, 2009, 01:21 AM
Both are very powerful rounds. But to compare them in the hopes of resolving which one is a better defensive round, more comfortable to shoot, which is more accurate, etc., etc. is an exercise in futility. I shoot them both and I love them both. They are excellent rounds that do an excellent job.

Hammerhead6814
October 27, 2009, 11:20 AM
Your all wrong.

The 9x18 Mak in a CZ Vz 82 is the superior defense cartridge/gun on the market! :neener:

Something I learned out of that first Armscor I rented is that if your going to use a .45 ACP 1911 pistol you need to buy QUALITY. The Armscor jumped out of my hands, had stripped threading for the grip bushings that made it hard to hold, the sights were set to the dirt and couldn't be adjusted without tools, and it grabbed after-market magazines with only the G.I. Spec seven-rounders working well. I finally started renting their Kimber 1911 and it's been everything the Armscor was not. Problem: The Armscor would cost $419 from Show Me. The Kimber is over $800.

Meanwhile .357 Magnum revolvers can be found for under $500, and it's apples to oranges. A S&W vs. a Ruger is not something to debate because there is nothing performance wise, price wise, or even reliability wise to make a case for either.

The two rounds are so similar debating their effectiveness is something that should be mute. It's what you want to pay, and what your comfortable with.

ArchAngelCD
October 28, 2009, 05:32 AM
As you can see, what I said in "Post #29" over a year ago is correct and still holds true... :uhoh:

joe_security
October 28, 2009, 09:49 AM
I would choose the .45ACP... Chuck Taylor has stated that (230gr. ball) falls on the ground right behind the BG. I prefer this to .357 for HD. Do i own a .357 ? Yes, its loaded with shortbarrel golddot .38+P. I dont want to abuse my old K frame.

zt77
October 28, 2009, 02:16 PM
I would choose the .45ACP... Chuck Taylor has stated that (230gr. ball) falls on the ground right behind the BG. I prefer this to .357 for HD. Do i own a .357 ? Yes, its loaded with shortbarrel golddot .38+P. I dont want to abuse my old K frame.

right behind the bad guy? he's full of it.

the 230 gr fmj that passed through my pelvic bone went an inch into a 2x4 that was 15 ft behind me.

mljdeckard
October 28, 2009, 02:25 PM
Yeah, that's total BS. If a round was that weak, I wouldn't use it for SD or HD. If it BARELY goes through a person and immediately dies, that means if the person is wearing leather and or layers, it might not penetrate at all. You want it to penetrate at leats 12 inches of ballistic gel.

As for .45 vs .357, the real world difference is so little, it's really more of a auto vs revolver question. If you prefer revolvers, you probably want a .357.

girvin02
October 28, 2009, 05:36 PM
When I am deer hunting, I don't wear hearing protection. When I shoot my 30-06 during target practice, I always wear hearing protection. Of all the deer I have shot, I can not remember one occassion where my ears were ringing or otherwise hurting, afterwards. I suspect that it would be the same in a self defense situation. In other words, I think that the argument of a .357 magnum being too loud is unfounded.

mljdeckard
October 28, 2009, 07:48 PM
Understand, there is a difference between a rifle fired outdoors, with the point of the origin of the sound almost three feet away from your ears, and a revolver being fired indoors, with the muzzle much closer to your ears, and much pressure and sound being released between the cylinder and forcing cone laterally. A .357 fired indoors without hearing protection pretty much guarantees hearing damage. Is it worth it if it saves your life? Probably. But it doesn't mean that there aren't other guns that will do the job with a lot less likelihood of hearing damage.

girvin02
October 28, 2009, 08:11 PM
Do an internet search for "Auditory Exclusion".

inSight-NEO
October 28, 2009, 08:15 PM
In other words, I think that the argument of a .357 magnum being too loud is unfounded.

Back in the day, before I "discovered" hearing protection, I fired off a 4" .357 Magnum loaded with Federal 125 JHPs. The result? After the first round I stopped and went inside to grab a set of ear muffs. Too bad my ears were already singing to me and my hearing acuity had dropped by 20% or more.

Oh, and I was shooting outdoors.

But, back to the main argument. As I mentioned before, I think the overall nod goes to the .357 Magnum, given the appropriate load. However, I still prefer .45 ACP as I simply find it more "practical" from an HD standpoint and I have yet to feel as if I am compromising much at all in going with this choice vs. the .357 Mag. Having said this, I still love the .357 Magnum and always will. In fact, its on my "to do" list as we speak. But, this has nothing to do with any belief of mine that this is a superior load bearing weapon. Rather, its about the versatility/characteristics of the platform itself.

It is true what many here have said in that both of these loads are very effective manstoppers (by reputation), so arguing between the two essentially boils down to platform choice.

BUFF
October 28, 2009, 08:22 PM
There has been a documented case in Texas where a police officer's .45 round did not penetrate a tractor-trailer's shell, but a .357 SIG round from a backup officer's gun did, killing the suspect inside. The round's ability to penetrate barriers is the main reason for its adoption by law enforcement agencies. However, other documented police shootings have confirmed the round's ability to not overpenetrate the body, even though ballistic gelatin shows 16 inches (410 mm) of penetration through heavy clothing (125 grain Speer Gold Dot).


This quote is from wikipedia in regards to the .357 sig..yes, I realize this is a different cartridge but it does have similar ballistics. I would guess the results would be very comparable to .357 mag.

inSight-NEO
October 28, 2009, 08:42 PM
There has been a documented case in Texas where a police officer's .45 round did not penetrate a tractor-trailer's shell, but a .357 SIG round from a backup officer's gun did, killing the suspect inside. The round's ability to penetrate barriers is the main reason for its adoption by law enforcement agencies. However, other documented police shootings have confirmed the round's ability to not overpenetrate the body, even though ballistic gelatin shows 16 inches (410 mm) of penetration through heavy clothing (125 grain Speer Gold Dot).

I wont comment on the .357 Sig vs. the .357 Magnum (125gr.) as Im not familiar enough with the .357 load. I imagine they are similar, but not similar enough. Either way yes, the .357 is penetrative (Im dubious about the report regarding the "non-overpenetration" of the body) but, this does not necessarily make it the "best" round as there are several factors at play here.

Having the ability to "shoot through metal" may be great for police, but not necessarily so for civilian CCW/HD use. Besides, the .45 ACP is quite penetrative in its own right. But, its the ability of a round to "stop" an opponent that Im concerned with. The .45 ACP does this nicely without the penetrative nature of various .357 Mag loads (leaving the .357 Sig aside for a moment).

BUFF
October 28, 2009, 08:54 PM
Absolutely agree with you Insight NEO..it would all depend on the situation..the reason Elmer developed the .357 mag was to help Eliott Ness and the G-men deal with the plated car doors and body armour of the 20's and 30's gangster era. It handled this effectively. The .45 is hands down the best combat pistol...I bet any German in WWII would agree..

BUFF
October 28, 2009, 09:39 PM
on second thought...just get a Glock in 10mm. It is the only answer to this kind of debate

zt77
October 28, 2009, 09:48 PM
.357 magnum for versatility. it has a flatter trajectory, can use heavy for caliber bullets better (from a hunting standpoint), and has a good reputation for SD.

.45 acp has a big bullet and a good reputation for SD.
good 9mm has a good reputation for SD.

pretty much all cartridges with good loads are good for SD.

.45 acp may be the only one that does okay with ball, but the .357 is more versatile.

I agree with the person before.....it boils down to platform preference.

Commander Crusty
October 28, 2009, 11:22 PM
As I recall, the 125 grain, full power HP is the King of stopping power. And guns that feed .357 magnums (read "revolvers") work virtually every time. Of course, the magnums are way loud and also usually have a Lot of muzzle flash.

That being said, the .45 ACP HP is very close. Most guns that feed .45 ACP are almost as reliable as revolvers, or can be Made that way by a good gunsmith. And the .45 has way less muzzle flash than any full power magnum loading and can hold twice as many shots.

So, ultimately, the .357 is King, but the .45 Rules!

AZ Desertrat
October 28, 2009, 11:29 PM
In pure ballistic terms....the .357 has the horsepower.....but in everyday gun fighting.....they both do the job just fine.

goon
October 29, 2009, 01:06 AM
I choose .357 because of the platform it's launched from.
It's the more versatile choice.
Nothing wrong with a good .45 though.

BTW - I'm one of those people who thinks that putting the bullet where it needs to go is more important than how big it is or how fast it gets there. As long as you have "enough", you don't really need anything else.
And either of the above have "enough".

KJS
October 29, 2009, 01:19 AM
Earlier this year the topic of guns came up on an investment forum that I used to frequent and I asked the .45 Auto vs .357 Mag question to an ER doc who posts there. Since he's treated gun shot wounds he would seem to be qualified to answer. He said both produce similar wounds.

His personal choice for home defense was a 12 gauge shotgun. He wasn't impressed by the stopping power of any handgun, even relating to me a story about how he got to patch up a guy who had seven bullet holes in him. The injuries were not serious enough to even require admission to the hospital. He told me that he never gets to work on people who are hit at close range by a shotgun as they go to the morgue rather than his ER.

KJS
October 29, 2009, 01:21 AM
I choose .357 because of the platform it's launched from.

S&W offers revolvers chambered in .45 ACP. Can't think of any other company that does, but at least the world's largest handgun maker has them.

Lawnman380
October 29, 2009, 05:40 AM
I agree...12ga pump 00buck best for HD.........

PT1911
October 29, 2009, 05:59 AM
I am gonna have to say that the worst ringing my ears have ever experienced has come from fireing my taurus 1911 the first time (no hearing protection..)

that was much worse.. IMO.... than the first time I shot a .357 (without hearing protection)

I cannot explain it.. but it is OH SO TRUE.. as my ears reminded me for about a week.

NOW I wear hearing protection.

Confederate
October 30, 2009, 07:31 PM
The issue isn't between handguns and shotguns, but between two handgun calibers. The .357 packs an astounding punch, and it does it out to respectable distances and to fairly large-sized critters. The 125gr JHP can, and has, put down deer and, yes, Virginia, even bear and cougars. It's also been shown to remain in human bodies, which means it's able to transfer 100% of its energy. It's also been proven on the street, as has the .45.

Bottom line: the .357 has been shown to have a flatter trajectory and to put down deer-sized game. The .45 has a much more limited trajectory and is not deemed suitable for hunting deer. Whether it tends to stay in the human body I don't know, but given the above, it should be considered not quite the stopper the more powerful .357 is.

If the bullet is a 185JHP, and the load is a +P, well, this might be different; for conventional loads, however, I'll take the .357.

Noveldoc
November 4, 2009, 02:48 PM
Ruger makes a Blackhawk SA with convertible 45 Colt and 45 ACP cylinders.

Tom

HydrostatiK
November 5, 2009, 09:41 AM
I like .45 acp over 357 magnum, because of the firearms not the cartridge. Any of the major self defense pistol calibers; 38, 9mm , 357, 40 , 45 one will not blow someone in half. You have to hit the same spots with each caliber, in order for them to be effective. Caliber performance is basicly the same, but the firearms they are shot from make a big difference depending on who you are.

EOC_Jason
November 5, 2009, 11:34 AM
Seven months and the thread is still going strong!

As others have said, it really depends on your platform preference...

Me personally, I usually carry a S&W J-frame w/357's... It's small, dependable, no safety, no wondering if a round is in the chamber... just point and squeeze...

harmon rabb
November 5, 2009, 12:44 PM
if a bad guy was coming at me, i'd be happy to have either a .357 or a .45 in my hand. no real preference.

Tiomoid
November 9, 2009, 12:31 PM
Ha, I always love these. Guess I will weigh in also.

At home with no nearby neighbors I would go for the .357 just based on my personal ease of use. But I carry a .45ACP because I love the caliber and with my ammo selection I am not worried about over penitration.

huntsman
November 9, 2009, 12:42 PM
The 125gr JHP can, and has, put down deer and, yes, Virginia, even bear and cougars.

I've never hunted with my .357 but why would someone use a 125GR over a 158 or 180 ?

txoilman
November 11, 2009, 04:14 PM
Dang .... I scrolled through 7 pages and nobody has thrown in the 'what if a bear comes at me' ?...I live to read those posts...again and again and again.

NMGonzo
November 11, 2009, 04:15 PM
I have 2 1911's.

Today I am packing my .357 snub nose.

I had a lot to do and It was out of the safe already.

frankiestoys
November 11, 2009, 05:30 PM
Dang .... I scrolled through 7 pages and nobody has thrown in the 'what if a bear comes at me' ?...I live to read those posts...again and again and again.
So what if a bear comes at me?
Only kidding.
I prefer the 357 it really is the most versatile cal ,IMO.

sonier
November 12, 2009, 08:37 PM
i wouldnt want to get shot by either!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, if i was a intruder id hate to have a projectile AND A FLASHBANG going off at me. so 357MAG FOR ME!!!!!! seriously muzzleflash and and noise level is a TACTICAL ADVANTAGE!!!!!!!! so if you hear the guy break in your house get some hearing protection on before you shoot him. if i loose my hearing i doubt a badguy is gona break in the house again after seeing what happened to his buddy lol
I helped butcher a goat for a guy, he shot it with a .45 ACP at 10 yards with a FMJ, this did not penetrate the goats skull it was a VERY WELL PLACED SHOT, i have butchered plenty of sheep cattle and goats with my 357 mag and 125 grain hp, and if im wrried bout penetration i have some hardcast lead rounds as well.

357 mag WINS
and if you want tacticle advantages of autoloader BUY A KOONAN you can get a 357 mag chambered in a autoloader

gsusd
November 13, 2009, 03:25 AM
.45 is safer for home defense (especially indoors); .357 is too fast and too powerful, plus recoil is hasher and the noise is worse.

goon
November 13, 2009, 03:40 AM
.45 is safer for home defense (especially indoors); .357 is too fast and too powerful, plus recoil is hasher and the noise is worse.

Generalization... can be cured with ammunition.
You can make a .357 lighter. Can't make a .45 ACP much heavier. ;)

sonier
November 13, 2009, 04:49 AM
good one gooon, i can load factory 38s in my 357 mag. since i reload my own ammo i can load some REALLY LIGHT .38s
factory ammunition wise 357 mag has .45 beat. you can load a .38 in 357 mag
you cant load a 45 colt in a 45 auto srry guys
im curious too what some .45 handloaders have made to make .45 faster hitting though.

tactikel
November 13, 2009, 11:30 PM
A charge of **.* grains of AA#5 pushes a 185 grain XTP to 1150 fps from a 5" barrel .45 auto. The load functions flawlessly in my XD-45 and is quite accurate too. I have 13+1 capacity and can launch a 1/3 pound of lead in under 4 seconds :what:!

Rev.Hendryx
November 14, 2009, 05:22 AM
7 pages... TLDR :(

but i'll chance to add my 2-cents...

.45 pros- more ammo, faster reloads, big ol' bullets.

.357 pros - better penetration, smaller guns

both have good reputations proven in actual shooting scenarios.

.45 cons- low penetration at a distance, large guns

.357 cons- lots of recoil, limited ammo, slow reloads

my take... i'd prefer a .45 for a house gun (lower chance of capping neighbors in my condo complex) and a .357 for a street gun (better penetration, and over longer distances). But then you have to figure... how well can you fire under stress? If you have doubts about your ability (realistically... take machismo out of the equation) you may want the larger capacity and faster reloads. Having to shoot the BG more than once is still better than not shooting them at all.

My carry weapon is an old Taurus model 66 in .357. I've fired a kimber pro-carry 5" in .45. The follow-up shots were much faster in the kimber, but that same gun failed to penetrate both sides of a plastic Folger's coffee can at about 20 yards.

Both are great guns. Your real question should be where you plan to use it and how well you can place a shot under stress.

Demitrios
November 14, 2009, 05:57 AM
A baseball bat has some pretty good stopping power. I would say it depends on what pistol you're more comfortable carrying. The first time I ever carried it was a full size 1911 chambered in 10mm. That will put some creatures down quick, fast and in a hurry. But I found myself really self-concious of not being able to conceal properly. If it's in your home then a shotgun will treat you much better than a pistol (just a personal opinion). Find something you naturally work well with, train, train, train and train some more with it and whatever you decide to use will treat you well if/when you god-forbid need to use it.

lobo9er
December 4, 2009, 10:43 PM
but that same gun failed to penetrate both sides of a plastic Folger's coffee can at about 20 yards.

am i missing somthing? was there anything in the can?

Sheepdog1968
December 4, 2009, 10:49 PM
I doubt that this would ever be settled. If I were stuck with a hand gun instead of a long arm, I want a semi-auto (faster reloads) and I want big diameter bullets so I choose a 45 ACP.

JTQ
December 4, 2009, 10:51 PM
am i missing somthing? was there anything in the can?

Sand? Concrete?

jad0110
December 4, 2009, 11:14 PM
Quote:
am i missing somthing? was there anything in the can?

Sand? Concrete?

Depleted uranium? :confused:

lobo9er
December 5, 2009, 05:43 PM
RIGHT! krptonite?

sthomper
June 11, 2010, 04:35 AM
with the expanding bullets does a (relatively) slow, heavy 45acp expanding wider create more "stopping" due to some type of surface area and mass combination that a zippy and light .357 (even though there is more energy) as it travels through skin and bone???


does the surface area contact somehow create more damage than more energy??

does the .357 mag still have more energy at 5 yards than at the muzzle exit??

JoeSlomo
June 11, 2010, 05:35 AM
Zombie thread....back from the dead.

RUN!

sthomper
June 11, 2010, 05:50 AM
you didnt have to reply at all.

meaning you probably have no life and thus are a zombie.

sthomper
June 11, 2010, 06:09 AM
maybe i will try to rephrase.

if a .45acp and a .357 mag hit the same spot on a human are the following observations likely to be true.

on the same spot a modern .45acp will hit slower but make a bigger entry wound and larger holes in organs??? (ie, skin, rib, heart)
on the same spot a .357 enters moving faster and makes a smaller entry wound and smaller holes in organs but be more likely pass through more organs and make an exit wound...? ??? (ie, skin, rib, heart, out the back skin)

opinion answer...have modern .45acp been brought to a level where most torso shots create exit wounds as well as .357mag???

Manco
June 11, 2010, 12:31 PM
if a .45acp and a .357 mag hit the same spot on a human are the following observations likely to be true.

on the same spot a modern .45acp will hit slower but make a bigger entry wound and larger holes in organs??? (ie, skin, rib, heart)
on the same spot a .357 enters moving faster and makes a smaller entry wound and smaller holes in organs but be more likely pass through more organs and make an exit wound...? ??? (ie, skin, rib, heart, out the back skin)

Much depends on the type of bullet that is used. .357 Magnum will make smaller holes, but some believe that the greater amount of energy it imparts to flesh will do more damage overall or create more of a "shock" effect (I don't think it's enough to make much of a difference, but that's just me). With hard, heavy bullets .357 Magnum has a greater potential to penetrate, which makes it better suited for killing animals larger than humans, but such a configuration would be a waste on humans or animals that are smaller. With soft, deformable bullets penetration may be less than one would expect due to rapid energy transfer, so .45 ACP should perform similarly (with a smaller temporary stretch cavity and slightly larger holes or permanent cavities).

opinion answer...have modern .45acp been brought to a level where most torso shots create exit wounds as well as .357mag???

Actually, modern bullets and loads are designed to expand more and penetrate just enough, usually staying inside the body. Most people actually desire this behavior, believing that overpenetration is to be avoided if possible, but I for one disagree and prefer a compromise between expansion and penetration (50% expansion with complete penetration and an exit wound in the common case). You'll have to decide how much penetration you think you'll need, and then select an appropriate load based on terminal ballistics test results (it's more about specific loads than caliber). If you want the best guarantee of fully penetrating human targets, then use "hard ball" (usually FMJ) rounds in either caliber.

rscalzo
June 11, 2010, 12:35 PM
grabs the popcorn and Dr. Pepper

After this, we can discus the best oil for a Harley.

sthomper
June 11, 2010, 04:03 PM
"With soft, deformable bullets penetration may be less than one would expect due to rapid energy transfer, so .45 ACP should perform similarly (with a smaller temporary stretch cavity and slightly larger holes or permanent cavities)."

this doesnt make much sense. if both bullets are the same material and type wouldnt the larger diamater bullet make a larger entry wound??

would the broader surface area of a .45acp at a slower speed and somewhat less penetration, i guess contact more human material...bodily damage, or would the smaller surface area but greater energy (and likely penetration) of the .357 make it travel farther and thus contact more human material (bodily damage)??

is the above the basic difference in the two bullets?? more surface area/less penetration? for the .45acp and for the .357 mag less surface area/more penetration so both end up displacing or contacting roughly the same amount of human material???

NMGonzo
June 11, 2010, 04:22 PM
You are shooting at 5 yards.

It's going through 2 legged animals no matter what.

Manco
June 11, 2010, 06:56 PM
"With soft, deformable bullets penetration may be less than one would expect due to rapid energy transfer, so .45 ACP should perform similarly (with a smaller temporary stretch cavity and slightly larger holes or permanent cavities)."

this doesnt make much sense. if both bullets are the same material and type wouldnt the larger diamater bullet make a larger entry wound??

I thought that was what I said (or implied). :confused: Using expanding bullets such as hollow-points in both calibers, a .45 ACP bullet would indeed make a larger entry wound, as well as a wider permanent cavity because the bullet has a wider diameter. My main point was that .357 Magnum's legendary penetration appears to drop quite a bit when using expanding bullets, down to where it's more or less comparable to that of .45 ACP (at least according to tests I've seen). The .357's extra energy goes into the temporary stretch cavity, which arguably causes more damage to flesh around the permanent cavity, but at these energy levels it is uncertain as to how useful this really is in terms of incapacitation. Some would argue that it makes .357 more effective, while others have more confidence in the larger permanent cavity of .45.

would the broader surface area of a .45acp at a slower speed and somewhat less penetration, i guess contact more human material...bodily damage, or would the smaller surface area but greater energy (and likely penetration) of the .357 make it travel farther and thus contact more human material (bodily damage)??

It depends on which loads you're comparing, as .45 JHPs can be made to overpenetrate (by limiting expansion and making it hot enough) and some .357 Magnum JHPs tend to stay inside the body. Personally, I prefer bullets to penetrate all the way through, from virtually any angle, in order to be able to reach any vital structures in their path; I'd hate to have a bullet stop just short when it was aimed at a spot that could have stopped a bad guy cold (e.g. the spinal column hiding behind all that skin, fat, muscle, and guts). It's not simply a matter of how much tissue is damaged, and to even do that you'd have to get test data for two specific loads that you're comparing. The performance of these calibers is close enough that the number of sweeping generalizations we can make is rather limited.

is the above the basic difference in the two bullets?? more surface area/less penetration? for the .45acp and for the .357 mag less surface area/more penetration so both end up displacing or contacting roughly the same amount of human material???

That's not necessarily true, although it might be if you're shooting grizzlies with hard-cast bullets, for instance. .357 Magnum definitely has greater energy and could penetrate a lot more if you wanted/needed it to, but this capability is generally wasted on human-sized targets, which is a key point to keep in mind. With the lightweight (usually 125 grains) JHPs recommended for defense against humans, .357 seems to dump its energy explosively into tissue, and as a result will not necessarily out-penetrate a .45 JHP (it won't if the latter goes all the way through). Therefore a .357 bullet will likely come into direct contact with a smaller volume of tissue than a .45 bullet, making for a smaller permanent cavity overall. Whether .357's larger temporary cavity (where much of its energy advantage went) compensates for this (and possibly more) is still controversial.

From a historical perspective, everybody seems to be impressed with the performance of .357 Magnum with regard to combat between humans, but even so I don't think that any solid conclusions have been reached as to exactly why it is supposedly a superior performer against humans. Maybe it's not really better, or maybe it is for reasons that we can't quite put a finger on. Fortunately those who are agonizing over which caliber to use for defense are given plenty of reasons to use another caliber, namely .357 Magnum's massive muzzle blast and plumes of fire shooting out the side from the cylinder gap. Recoil can also be an issue for many people, but I shoot .40 S&W in a polymer-framed pistol, so it doesn't bother me. ;) .357 Magnum is fun to shoot, but I feel pretty good about using calibers such as .45 ACP and .40 S&W for defensive purposes (and smaller calibers can be nearly as effective, too, really).

Ric
June 11, 2010, 07:42 PM
Generally
45 is the standard in autos
357 is the standard in revolvers
I'm sure there are many exceptions.

TonyT
June 11, 2010, 08:03 PM
That's like choosing between blondes and redheads - a lot of personnall prefernce and shot plkacement is more important than weapon choice.

Zanad
June 11, 2010, 08:13 PM
hmmm, if the .357 is a redhead and the blo.de is the .45, I'll take the redhead.

To me, the .357 doesnt kick that much if you have the right gun; but thats just me.

hemiram
June 14, 2010, 09:56 PM
Day before yesterday, we shot some watermelons that had seen better days. A friend's wife brought home a dozen that were going to be dumpstered from the store she works in. We shot them with .45ACP, 9mm, .38 spl, .357, 44 Spl and Mag, and .45 LC. In the smaller calibers the .357 really did a number on them, blowing them up, nearly as well as the .44 Mag did. The .44 spl, 45 LC, and ACP did blow a nice hole in them, but the magnums really popped them. Didn't seem to matter all that much what the bullet type was. The 9mm seemed to be better than the .38 too.

The .45 seems like it would be the choice for a house gun.

shockwave
June 14, 2010, 10:39 PM
45 is the standard in autos
357 is the standard in revolvers

Good comment.

Also, I can put all 7 rounds of .357 in a very tight group at close range. I can't do that with .45. So for HD I just feel better with .357 because of accuracy under pressure. Shooting .45s isn't a problem, but the recoil of it isn't good for my aim. This really gets around to "shoot the largest caliber you can fire accurately."

Rexster
June 15, 2010, 07:22 PM
Ric: "Generally
45 is the standard in autos
357 is the standard in revolvers"

Yes! When I learned to shoot in the early 1980's, and started wearing a badge in 1984, the regional standard for LEOs was S&W .357 Magnum sixguns and Colt 1911 autopistols. Low-dedication personnel, the lowest common denominator, carried .38 Specials in their .357 sixguns. The serious pistoleros carried Magnums in their sixguns, or 1911s. Many of these serious pistoleros owned and used both. (Texas did not have a CHL system in place until the 1990's, therefore my mention of LEOs.)

As late as 2002, I carried both 1911s and .357 sixguns to work; 1911 in the duty rig, and GP100 cased next to me, in a Safepacker, on the driver's seat. (The term "seat gun" existed for while; haven't heard it in a while.) I kept a .357 sixgun that way until as late as 2007, though the duty autopistol had changed to .40 in 2002.

Other lawmen, mandated to carry sixguns in the duty rig, carried 1911s off-body, in a similar manner.

These lawmen knew that both cartridges had their place, and that some could do certain things better than the other.

So, why do folks keep taking about ".357 versus .45 ACP?" The correct answer is both, of course. Oh, sure, well before the internet existed, gun magazine writers, and folks writing letters to the editors of the magazines, would argue about this. I, and many other serious pisotoleros, would roll our eyes, or shake our heads, and just go right along using both the .357 Mag and .45 ACP.

I have recently thought about reviving the practice of bringing a big .357 sixgun to work with me, again. Some things just feel so right. FWIW, I have actually used a .357 to defend myself, on duty.

Manco
June 15, 2010, 10:39 PM
Day before yesterday, we shot some watermelons that had seen better days. A friend's wife brought home a dozen that were going to be dumpstered from the store she works in. We shot them with .45ACP, 9mm, .38 spl, .357, 44 Spl and Mag, and .45 LC. In the smaller calibers the .357 really did a number on them, blowing them up, nearly as well as the .44 Mag did. The .44 spl, 45 LC, and ACP did blow a nice hole in them, but the magnums really popped them.

That's the extra energy of the magnums at work, of course, and it can be seen in ballistics gelatin as well, but what effect it really has on flesh--particularly the more elastic types--is debatable. Obviously people, even small individuals, do not explode when they're hit by .357 Magnum or even .44 Magnum rounds. It takes a lot more kinetic energy, as in high-powered rifles, to make an indisputable difference in wounding humans.

Didn't seem to matter all that much what the bullet type was.

While this is usually true for watermelons, the bullet type can make a major difference when shooting plastic jugs filled with water, which shows the importance of considering the target medium when selecting a caliber to use.

The 9mm seemed to be better than the .38 too.

9mm Luger usually has much more energy than .38 Special.

The .45 seems like it would be the choice for a house gun.

It's certainly a good choice, in my opinion, although some smaller calibers may be nearly or just as good with some advantages of their own.

What's interesting is that .357 Magnum is so comparable with regard to reputation even though .45 Colt, which has been around for such a long time, is far more similar to .45 ACP in ballistics (in factory loads, it was slightly more powerful in the past and is slightly less powerful now). I guess this goes to show that reputation isn't always primarily based on performance parameters, but rather on "social" factors and happenstance in large part.

Charles Davis
June 16, 2010, 01:32 AM
Some random thoughts. You should carry the most powerful round you can shoot accurately. Some people have trouble with the flash, recoil and noise of a .357.Depending on the round, a .357 mag might be in the 600 ft/lbs energy range. Thats one reason why many police switched to the .40 in a semi auto. Less noise and recoil. while less powerful on paper then a .357, it scored 96 percent one shot stops on Evan marshall,s charts. As I recall, it produces approx 500 ft/lbs of energy. (A 9 MM depending on round selected is around 400 ft/lbs)
A footnote, the FBI sugests a minimum of 400 ft/lbs of energy for a self defense round.
If you carry a snubby in .357, alot of the energy is burned after the muzzle in flash and smoke. "Bufalo Bore" specialty ammunition has a .38 round for snub nose that delivers approx the same energy with less flash and recoil. Check their charts but they have a 158 grain round similar to the old FBI load that develops approx 1000 Ft/sec at the muzzle of a 2.75 lg barrel. That will expand the round reliably.
PS. Its critical to select a good defensive round to transfer the energy to an attacker. I carry silvertips in my .357 S & W medium frame and "buffalo bore" in my snubby.

Ben86
June 16, 2010, 01:14 PM
I think the .45 acp's size trumps the .357 magnum's velocity. I am also not fond of how loud the .357 mag is, I can't imagine how defining it is indoors. Probably like a flash/bang going off in front of your face.

sonier
June 16, 2010, 02:36 PM
The 45 wont have the massive explosion capabilities the 357 magnum has, I set up a test on penetration, it was 2 hog hams and a shoulder blade behind those hams. the load was a custom load of mine, It was a 125 grain hollowpoint with 22 grains of H-110 behind pushing about 1800fps, this load has 899 foot pounds, this is a MAX LOAD i have worked to this point over the years, it is not safe in most guns. It penetrated 7 inches, thats not much penetration huh? so where did all that momentum go and all that power, well it created a wound channel that was about 3 inches wide. Heres a pic of what the bullet looked like when i recovered it. Personally i dont think the 45 is capable of producing that much power. The 357 mag is indeed a superior cartridge in stopping power.

Ben86
June 16, 2010, 03:41 PM
Personally i dont think the 45 is capable of producing that much power.

It would if you loaded it up to hyper velocities like you did with your .357. Take the .454 casull for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.454_Casull

sonier
June 16, 2010, 04:17 PM
linking the 454 casull is like me linking the 357 super mag or 357 maximum I can load 110 grain in the 357 magnum with h-110 and reach over 2000fps and just tad over 1000 foot pounds.

sonier
June 16, 2010, 04:21 PM
the 45 ACP canot withstand high pressure, the hottest load you can fire in this cartridge is producing 600 foot pounds at its max, i have 583 loads on one webpage that has all the load data from every sight, and i could not find one that even got too 600 foot pounds. so show me a load that is published that produces any where even close too my 357 mag published load. It wont happen you need a dif cartidge such as the 45 winchester mag or 460 rowland.

rswartsell
June 16, 2010, 04:26 PM
see Mr. Peter,

Post #72.

+1

rswartsell
June 16, 2010, 04:28 PM
If the question was versatility, .357 hands down. My favorite and has been for 30+ years. Coming down to common sense I can't say it better than Mr. Peter did oh so many frenetic posts ago.

Manco
June 16, 2010, 09:12 PM
Some random thoughts. You should carry the most powerful round you can shoot accurately. Some people have trouble with the flash, recoil and noise of a .357.Depending on the round, a .357 mag might be in the 600 ft/lbs energy range. Thats one reason why many police switched to the .40 in a semi auto. Less noise and recoil.

Larger bullets can generally carry similar wounding potential with less flash & bang.

while less powerful on paper then a .357, it scored 96 percent one shot stops on Evan marshall,s charts. As I recall, it produces approx 500 ft/lbs of energy. (A 9 MM depending on round selected is around 400 ft/lbs)

These differences in kinetic energy might make a noticeable difference when shooting watermelons, but I for one doubt it makes much difference when shooting people. Maybe it does, but I'm skeptical.

A footnote, the FBI sugests a minimum of 400 ft/lbs of energy for a self defense round.

It's just a general guideline regarding wounding potential, and is not intended to suggest that the "transfer of energy" is a useful wounding mechanism at the levels encountered with common handgun calibers (including .357 Magnum). In fact, the FBI dismisses this theory outright, saying that shot placement and penetration are the main factors in incapacitation, everything else being secondary.

The 45 wont have the massive explosion capabilities the 357 magnum has, I set up a test on penetration, it was 2 hog hams and a shoulder blade behind those hams. the load was a custom load of mine, It was a 125 grain hollowpoint with 22 grains of H-110 behind pushing about 1800fps, this load has 899 foot pounds, this is a MAX LOAD i have worked to this point over the years, it is not safe in most guns. It penetrated 7 inches, thats not much penetration huh? so where did all that momentum go and all that power, well it created a wound channel that was about 3 inches wide. Heres a pic of what the bullet looked like when i recovered it. Personally i dont think the 45 is capable of producing that much power.

True, .45 ACP cannot achieve this level of kinetic energy and wound in exactly the same matter. However, it should be noted that most factory-loaded .357 Magnum rounds have far less energy, as well, and are already a handful as it is.

The 357 mag is indeed a superior cartridge in stopping power.

That's not necessarily true, especially with the limited penetration in your example. It depends on where the target is hit and how deeply the bullet must penetrate in order to destroy vital tissues.

While I think it is fair to say that .357 Magnum theoretically has more wounding potential by virtue of its greater kinetic energy, actually realizing its full potential in the real world against human targets is tricky. This is because the bullets are small, and although they're relatively energetic, they still don't have enough energy to devastate people the way high-powered rifles can. If the benefits were demonstrably worth the tradeoffs, then commonly available .357 Magnum rounds would not be as lightly loaded as they are. The .357's forte is really high penetration against large animals when used with certain types of bullets, and like I said earlier this capability is somewhat wasted with humans.

sonier
June 16, 2010, 10:31 PM
The reason light bullets arnt loaded fast from the factory is due to flame cutting, I want to limit my self defense rounds to maybe 500 throught he entire revolvers life, its not due to lack of power or people comparing it to shooting aluminum foil rounds. and the thread was 45 vs 357 not 357 vs 30/06. and also a 30/06 factory load is a 150 grain or 165 grain bullet which is same category as 158 grain swc out of the 357 mag. also the penetration of 7 inches is plenty enough to get the bullet inside vitals very easy, as well as a nice medium 158 or 180 leadcast has superior penetration to the 45 acp.

Manco
June 17, 2010, 01:17 AM
The reason light bullets arnt loaded fast from the factory is due to flame cutting,

Then that is one of the several drawbacks for which any increase in "stopping power" due to energy isn't considered sufficient to override. And while using a heavier bullet on maxed-out loads may be more forgiving on the gun, it will grossly overpenetrate human targets. Designing a bullet and load that will work just right in every way and maximize the so-called "stopping power" of this caliber is not easy.

and the thread was 45 vs 357 not 357 vs 30/06.

The point is that whether people realize it or not, they are essentially comparing .357 Magnum (or any service pistol caliber) to high-powered rifle calibers whenever they mention "energy transfer" as a wounding mechanism.

and also a 30/06 factory load is a 150 grain or 165 grain bullet which is same category as 158 grain swc out of the 357 mag.

.30-06 has a lot more energy than .357 Magnum, of course.

also the penetration of 7 inches is plenty enough to get the bullet inside vitals very easy,

But the probability of hitting something vital is reduced. For example, 7 inches of penetration would not be enough to incapacitate me with a gut shot, but a .45 ACP bullet that penetrates 12+ inches to my spinal column might just do the trick (not that I'm volunteering for experiments ;)).

as well as a nice medium 158 or 180 leadcast has superior penetration to the 45 acp.

True enough, but it would be wasted in comparison to a .45 ACP bullet that expands a fair amount but still penetrates all the way through (there are a number of loads that will do this). Plus the .45 ACP bullet would create a larger permanent wound channel. Simply put, there are advantages to being larger, and it is unclear whether .357 Magnum has sufficient energy (especially in a manageable load) to overcome this advantage--maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. I personally favor excess penetration, within reason, so I'd actually side with .357 Magnum overall, I think, but that doesn't mean I can prove that it's better than .45 ACP overall (just trying to be fair). Against large, tough, powerful animals, .357 Magnum has a significant advantage, no question, but against humans it's more complicated, and .357 Magnum isn't exactly a bona fide rifle round, as pointed out above.

sleepyone
June 17, 2010, 02:16 AM
I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but I have heard from reputable sources that the 357 mag is the world's most proven man stopper with the highest number of confirmed kills and the highest percentage of one-shot stops. Can anyone confirm or refute this?

That being said, I have shot a lot of both and I would not want to get in the way of either.

sthomper
June 17, 2010, 04:07 AM
"These lawmen knew that both cartridges had their place, and that some could do certain things better than the other."

i have read that most self defense (or maybe even all shootings) are in the 15 foot range.

if that is so, and with that in mind, what benefits are there to each? only from a bullet standpoint really, not so much the pistol type standpoint.

is the mass on a very speedy .357 mag suffiicient to penetrate flesh and bone (without deflection and fragmentation) as well as a .45acp?? does the .45acp's mass and momentum break through bone barriers better than the .357 mag???

does the seemingly small amount of diameter differnce really make an impact when teh bullets hit solid items...bone, wood, glass, solid barriers, iow???

sthomper
June 17, 2010, 05:03 AM
The 3nd volume...
is that a mistake?? do you mean 2nd or 3rd what is a 3nd??? is there even such a ting as 3nd??

sthomper
June 17, 2010, 05:24 AM
and if you want tacticle advantages

what do you mean by tacticle?

sthomper
June 17, 2010, 05:32 AM
357 seems to dump its energy explosively into tissue, and as a result will not necessarily out-penetrate a .45 JHP (it won't if the latter goes all the way through). Therefore a .357 bullet will likely come into direct contact with a smaller volume of tissue than a .45 bullet, making for a smaller permanent cavity overall....

how does a metal bullet explosivley dump energy??? is that a false concept??

sthomper
June 17, 2010, 05:52 AM
"I don't think that any solid conclusions have been reached as to exactly why it is supposedly a superior performer against humans. "

with similar bullet construction and placement will the .357 mag nearly always give better penetration performance?? is there anything about the human body that would make the popular .357 mag loads less likely to penetrate bones and skin than a .45 acp??

is there anything about the .357mag that would make it more likely to be deflected or fragmented even though it has greater energy?

Manco
June 17, 2010, 01:41 PM
how does a metal bullet explosivley dump energy??? is that a false concept??

I was figuratively comparing it to the watermelon example, and sometimes things like fruits do appear to explode when hit by a bullet carrying enough kinetic energy and "dumping" it quickly enough to overwhelm their structural integrity with hydrodynamic forces. In flesh, which is usually far more resilient, I just meant that the bullet loses energy and momentum very quickly, thereby limiting penetration.

with similar bullet construction and placement will the .357 mag nearly always give better penetration performance??

Not necessarily. With hard-cast, non-expanding bullets .357 Magnum should have significantly greater penetration potential, but with expanding bullets the opposite is usually true, with slower, heavier bullets generally getting more penetration (depending on how much they expand, of course). Any graphs that depict the relationship between velocity and penetration must look pretty weird (having some kind of wave shape, sometimes going up and sometimes going down, I'd imagine), but for whatever reason, that's how things seem to work.

is there anything about the human body that would make the popular .357 mag loads less likely to penetrate bones and skin than a .45 acp??

Nothing that I know of.

is there anything about the .357mag that would make it more likely to be deflected

Lighter bullet weights?

or fragmented even though it has greater energy?

Yeah...greater energy. :D

sthomper
June 17, 2010, 06:30 PM
"...but with expanding bullets the opposite is usually true, with slower, heavier bullets generally getting more penetration (depending on how much they expand, of course)."

are you saying that even though an expanding type .357mag still with greater energy than an expanding .45acp the heavier, slower .45acp will tend to penetrate further???

GLOOB
June 18, 2010, 06:20 AM
dfgdfgdfgdfgd

GLOOB
June 18, 2010, 06:24 AM
I don't put much stock in Marshall Sanow statistics, to begin with. But even if you take them at stock value, consider why the .357 might have a higher 1 shot stop statistic.

It was the most common police caliber, once upon a time, in a simpler day and age where police officers sometimes aimed. Afterall, they had to get the job done with 6 shots, against criminals who were similarly armed. The one that missed was the one that lost. After a good hit, you might even want to save some rounds, in case there's another criminal around.

Compared to today. "... unloaded his entire 15 shot magazine from 10 feet away, hitting the suspect once in the arm."

Or, "suspect shot 26 times and killed."

There aren't many instances where modern police officers make a good shot, then stop there. What's the saying? Anything worth shooting once is worth shooting twice?

strambo
June 18, 2010, 12:45 PM
I took a .357 revolver and reamed every other chamber to .45 cal and also re-bored the barrel to .45 dia. for the best of both worlds. The .357 mags tumble for devastating effect and the .45 blows 'em off their feet.

Manco
June 18, 2010, 01:10 PM
"...but with expanding bullets the opposite is usually true, with slower, heavier bullets generally getting more penetration (depending on how much they expand, of course)."

are you saying that even though an expanding type .357mag still with greater energy than an expanding .45acp the heavier, slower .45acp will tend to penetrate further???

I'm saying that it could, depending on the exact designs of the bullets and loads. While this all may seem counterintuitive to some, energy counts less than momentum when it comes to penetration, and some .45 ACP rounds have both greater momentum and higher sectional density (even though they're wider) than some .357 Magnum rounds (generally true regarding service-type rounds). In addition, faster bullets tend to expand sooner, causing more damage while the wound is still shallow and sacrificing some penetration in the process. Of course, this can be compensated for by using heavier, longer .357 Magnum bullets, but then the kinetic energy will drop, reducing its already dubious advantage over .45 ACP in terms of indirect wounding.

Don't get me wrong--.357 Magnum is a very versatile round and I'm sure that an expanding round could be designed to out-penetrate expanding .45 ACP rounds, but in the most common factory loads for self-defense, .357 Magnum does not necessarily penetrate more than .45 ACP, and in fact usually the opposite is true, based on what I've seen.

Justin Holder
June 20, 2010, 12:52 AM
10mm Auto, any questions class?

sonier
June 20, 2010, 02:09 AM
357 mag and the 45 acp out perform the 10mm lol

MCgunner
June 20, 2010, 09:53 AM
I'm glad someone dug up an old chevy vs ford thread and didn't start yet a new one.

10mm is capable of as much energy out of a 5" gun as .357 is out of a 6" revolver. It's WAY ahead of the .45ACP even in +P and equals the .357 and tosses a bigger bullet to boot. I don't own one, just sayin'. :D

I'm sure I commented on this thread somewhere, but I'm too lazy to flip the pages. But, I've shot hogs in the trap with both calibers and I've killed several hogs out of the trap with the .357. The .357 magnum is a legit hunting caliber....45ACP, not so much. I can tell you the .357 kills hogs faster in my experience. Now, I own a .45 Colt that I can push a 300 grain pill to 1200 fps, but I thought we were talking .45ACP here.

I was strolling back to the truck after checking my trap one day several months back and stumbled into an 80 lb boar staring at me from an oak mot about 15 yards distant. I placed one 140 grain Speer JHP carry load (17 grains 2400) on his head. The pressure from the ballistic pressure wave was such that it blew his right eye out of it's socket. Now, I've not seen this with the .45ACP, but did one other time head shooting a pig in the trap. It is a little gross, but impressive, and it's why I think the .45 doesn't measure up to the .357, pure energy, the ballistic pressure wave that caliber puts up. I hunt with a 6.5" Blackhawk, but shot that particular pig with a 3" Taurus M66 that I carry from time to time in cooler months. I've been a fan of the caliber for 35 years. My first centerfire handgun was a 4" Ruger Security Six. I traded that Security Six for the Blackhawk for a hunting revolver. My .45 Colt is also a Blackhawk, a 4 5/8" stainless and my .45 ACP is a KP90DC. I sorta like Rugers. :D

The .45ACP is a good self defense caliber, easy to shoot, mild recoil and report, fast follow ups if needed, but for raw power, I'll pick the magnum. For hunting, I'll pick the magnum. I even like it as a carry weapon. I rather enjoy the recoil and muzzle flash. :D It means POWER. But, I don't thiink it's any better than the .45ACP for self defense, really, sorta TOO much if that's possible. The .45 is quite deadly with the right ammo, after all. Heck, I carry the 9x19 more than either one of those calibers and even the .38 special and EVEN the 9x18 Makarov. I feel a little more confident that the 9x19, the .45, or the .357 will get the job done with less rounds fired than the .38 or 9x18, but that don't mean those calibers are less than worthy for self defense considering the platforms they're chambered in are so easily concealed. But, then, my fav is for that reason, the Kel Tec is a pocket auto in a service caliber and that's hard to beat.

There's more to choosing what to carry than the power of the cartridge I guess is what I'm saying. In what amounts to winter here, about 3 months where it rarely breaks 85 degrees for highs and there are one or two days it actually freezes, I have a choice of .357 vs .45. The rest of the year it's 9x19 vs .38 special which is yet another argument that I'm sure there's an old thread or 10 on this board about. :D

easyg
June 20, 2010, 12:14 PM
My two cents worth...

The .357 magnum is definitely more powerful than the .45ACP.
But I wouldn't want to shoot 200 rounds of .357 magnum in one range session.

MCgunner
June 20, 2010, 11:55 PM
But I wouldn't want to shoot 200 rounds of .357 magnum in one range session.

Not a problem in a K or L or N frame or my Ruger Blackhawk or a GP100. No, I don't like ONE round out of a S&W 12 ounce Scandium J frame. There are .357s then there are .357s.

Harley Rider 55
June 21, 2010, 04:42 PM
Personal defense against 2 legged or 4 legged animals?

For 2 legged, I'm a .45 ACP guy.
My woods gun is a 2.5" S&W 66 loaded with Double Tap 180gr hardcast loads.

Tallinar
June 21, 2010, 11:52 PM
I took a .357 revolver and reamed every other chamber to .45 cal and also re-bored the barrel to .45 dia. for the best of both worlds. The .357 mags tumble for devastating effect and the .45 blows 'em off their feet

Sorry, but this may be the best reply to this entire thread.

sonier
June 22, 2010, 03:40 PM
um a 357 slug through a 45 barrel you wont get much velocity at all with that, seems like the worse idea personally, last thing i want is a low velocity tumbling round, heck id rather have a paintball gun. you need pressure to get velocity and with that barrel the pressure can go around the barrel erode the barrel and just cause a lot of issues.

RonBernert
June 22, 2010, 04:29 PM
Sorry, but this may be the best reply to this entire thread.
I agree! So what do we call it- A tumble and push?

Justin Holder
June 23, 2010, 04:29 PM
"357 mag and the 45 acp out perform the 10mm lol"

I guess you would argue that the 30-06 is more powerful than the 300 Weatherby Mag too.

lawboy
June 24, 2010, 02:38 AM
This
http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd221/behightower/OACP005-1.jpg
or this.
http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd221/behightower/guns/photos10741.jpg
I have carried and competed with both. Both work really well. 45 is easier to shoot for extended periods and comes back on target faster. These things are significant in competition. I don't think they would matter a hoot in a self defense gunfight.

RebelRabbi
June 24, 2010, 04:07 PM
With the production of the 500 S&W Magnum underway, these puny calibers are now obsolete!

Thatguy686
September 2, 2010, 10:40 PM
the thing people arent realizing here when saying they cant get a second shot off accurately is that the target isnt going to be 25 yards away hes gonna be 5-15 feet away u dont have to make a pretty shot in a self defense situation i feel confident that i could place 6/6 shots from my .357 in a intruder just as easy as a .45 acp although the .45 has more ammo the question to ask urself is have u trained enough to need the extra ammo or not?

Nushif
September 2, 2010, 11:08 PM
I love these threads!

I always liken it to this ...

At least once a day, some nubcakes comes on EVE and asks "What's the best ship?" ...
when they get the answer "Depends. there is no single best ship" I swear I can hear their heads explode over the internet.

The same applies to guns. There are so many factors involved in this mythical equation of "stopping power" or "accuracy" or "killing power" or whatever you wanna call it.
Believe it or not, one of them is your own strength. I know guys who can somewhat control an aging M-60 from the hip. I also know guys who can't. That being said, think about it. are you a big guy who can absorb the arguably stiff recoil from a .357 Magnum in a portable package and be
a) accurate and
b) fast.
Secondly, think about your choice of platforms. Are you better with a Revolver or a Semi-Auto? Now, on top of that, which of these within these criteria are you better with?!
Singlestacks? Doublestacks? Square grips and long barrels or a nice little compact snubby?

I hate to say this, but the OP, you ... are basically asking a pretty dumb question. There is no such thing as a "best" in life.
Except for crushing your enemies, seeing them driven before you and hearing the lamentations of their women, of course.

dgvc63
November 11, 2010, 05:44 PM
What are YOU more comfortable with a double action revolver or an autoloader?... that's really the only question coupled with which do you SHOOT MORE EFFECTIVELY?

Deaf Smith
November 11, 2010, 08:31 PM
f it's for primarly self defense and nothing else, I'd prefer the 1911 (but a good snub K frame or Ruger Security/Speed Six ain't bad.)

If it's for the field with SD as a secondary use, a good revolver in .357 is very hard to beat (but a 1911 will do if need be.)

But if you are an excellent fast shot... heck pick what you like the best and don't worry. Both the .45 and .357 is good 'uns!

Deaf

Darth_guy101
November 21, 2010, 03:49 PM
Both rounds will do the job with equal effectiveness. The .357 does pack a heftier punch, but the .45 is no slouch either. The .357 mag is my personal choice due to its inherent simplicity and easy to find ammo (it can use .38 and .38 special to train with). The .45 in a semi-auto is a great great gun as well, I'm just a revolver guy. I think it all depends on what you are more comfortable with shooting.

BushyGuy
November 21, 2010, 04:04 PM
i would say .45 acp with +p JHP has better stopping power then any .357 mag round. if its standard .45 acp JHP vs .357 mag 125 gr JHp then i would say the .357 magnum.

.45 acp 200 gr Speer GDHP +P JHP expands to .77 of an inch while the .357 mag 125 gr JHP expands to .58 of an inch an dhas better penetration but the GDHP has better hydrostatic shock and expansion.

.45 acp Speer 200 gr +p gdhp has 518 FT/lbs of energy!

SharpsDressedMan
November 21, 2010, 04:59 PM
"With the production of the 500 S&W Magnum underway, these puny calibers are now obsolete!" Aw, you just HAD to go and say THAT! http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m247/matquig/DSC05993.jpg

Prosser
November 21, 2010, 09:36 PM
What really bugs me about these discussions is everyone seems to think in TWO dimensions.

Think of stopping power as THREE dimensions, with the most important being the length of the penetration channel. In other words:

a 30-06 works VERY well with a light bullet because the wound channel looks like this:
Pictures from Martin Fackler:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/308%20Winchester.jpg
a 125 grain .357 wound channel looks like this:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/357%20Magnum.jpg
and a .45 ACP like this:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/45%20ACP%20WW%20STHP.jpg
And a 12 Gauge like this:
http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/12%20Gauge%20No%204%20Buckshot.jpg

If the shotgun is a magic wand, one might look at projectile weight as the magic in the formula.
over 540 grains of lead has a serious effect on targets, in most any form.

Perhaps if one wants shotgun like stopping power, one should start looking at handgun calibers that more then double the bullet weight of either the .45 ACP, or .357.
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f99/Socrates28/Model%2083%20FA%20475/DSC_0060FA83Barrelshotbulletsverycl.jpg

IIRC: .500 Linebaugh max 525 grains, 1350 fps, 525 grain .510 bullet for max, a .500 JRH that did in an asian buffalo, a Hawk 325 grain thin jacketed .510 bullet for deer/BG's, .475 Linebaugh Hornady factory 400 grain XTP @ 1350 fps from my gun, 325 grain flat point going 1500 fps with low recoil, low pressure loads, in .475,
300 grain HP Hawk @ 1560 fps with low pressure loads, 45 Colt, 45 ACP/Super, and .357 mag.
.475 Linebaugh FA 83 loaded with 400 grain Hornady XTP, at 1350 fps. Heavy, expanding, and fast is best.
Makes a great pillow.

Res ipsa loquitur.

oldfool
November 22, 2010, 08:18 AM
c'mon folks
vs versus vs, ya gotta be kidding me
I thunk the cavemen settled this one

just carry both, one in each hand
if that still ain't e'nuff for you, maybe you need a hand grenade :rolleyes:

Azb
November 22, 2010, 08:43 AM
c'mon folks
vs versus vs, ya gotta be kidding me
I thunk the cavemen settled this one

just carry both, one in each hand
if that still ain't e'nuff for you, maybe you need a hand grenade :rolleyes:

Which hand grenade is better, the pineapple or the potato masher?

Az

tipoc
November 22, 2010, 02:54 PM
This thread began in 2008.

It somehow keeps being revived by someone who does not read through the whole thing.

Anything anyone here has to say was likely said at least a year ago.

Expect this, of course. :)

tipoc

hardworker
November 22, 2010, 04:22 PM
They really should make a sticky that 357 vs 45 is six of one, half dozen of the other.

GunNut1976
December 9, 2010, 10:48 PM
Just to add my 2 cents when it comes to momentum your average 230gr .45 and your average 125gr .357 are pretty close to the same giving the .45 a slight edge if I remember correctly. If you look at kinetic energy the .357 is usually far ahead of the .45. What these numbers actually mean in terms of how much damage it will cause is still up for debate. Something to keep in mind a .357 might expand but a .45 never shrinks. can't remember where I read that but there it is. Obviously either are very good choices and you're probably splitting hairs when it gets done to it. The .45 will make a bigger hole and will almost always penetrate the width of a human torso and then some the .357 with its greater velocity exhibits much more violent expansion and creates a greater temporary cavity. So like I said splitting hairs.

FM12
December 10, 2010, 12:58 AM
Sometimes I carry both: A Dan Wesson 4" and a 1911 of various types or a sig 220. Always feel safe with both, but also never feel undergunned with only either one!

dgvc63
January 5, 2011, 03:18 PM
Question -.357 Magnum or .45 ACP

Answer - BOTH!!!

Sniderman
January 5, 2011, 10:00 PM
I'd rather be run over by a Marmon than a Peterbuilt, Nicer looking rig for the last thing I'd ever see, :D

Brass Rain
January 5, 2011, 11:16 PM
Ten pages of this? Wow, that's sad. They're different rounds with different purposes generally used in completely different guns. Neither is "better" than the other except for personal preference.

If you enjoyed reading about "357 Magnum vs 45 ACP" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!