[10 Ringer']

Judging by recent posts, theres been renewed interest in the progress of wheelguns chambered for rounds more common in autos. I love my little Taurus .357 snub gun but don't see why I should pay $10 a box for .357magnum when I could pay $5 for the same amount of 9mm and get nearly the same performance with less barrel snap!

By the numbers, especially in snub size guns, a 9mm does have an advantage over the .38 special despite the seeming shortfall of the cylinder-frame gap not found in autos. Being a novice in this area, I still might speculate that even in 3-6 inch barrels, that shorter... perhaps more efficient auto size cartridge, like a .357SIG or 45ACP might still hold an advantage over the longer .357cartridge that might lose unburned powder out the business end. Anyone care to take this one and run with it?

[C.R.Sam]

I don't run no mo...but...
Your Taurus snub shootin 9X19 not even close to same gun shootin good .357Mag. Same gun with NO barrel and .357 maby close to 9X19 WITH barrel.

.45 ACP doesn't fit the arguement, bullet weight and diameter put it in different class. More like comparing it with .44 Special. In that case they pretty even with mild .44 Special loads. Be even closer to compare .45 ACP with .45 Colt. There the .45 Colt wins by a bunch.

I think, but not sure, the .357 Sig would fall between the .38 Special and .357 Mag.

Nuther way to look at it...
.357 Mag is 9X32R.

Whew

Sam

[SnWnMe]

No. At least not in the U.S.

[Quantrill]

NO!

[BigG]

I doubt it. The 38/357s ctgs have advantages in wheelguns. The moonclip thingies are fine for people who go into that sort of thing, but the vast majority of snubbies probably seldom get shot and are for business purposes only.

I for one do not equate a 115 grain 9mm to a 158 grain 357 magnum, YMMV.

[C.R.Sam]

I for one do not equate a 115 grain 9mm to a 158 grain 357 magnum, YMMV. Guess I'm gonna have to load and clock some 115gr in .357.
Just happen to have some Sierra JHC 115s :D

Sam

[mtnbkr]

Guess I'm gonna have to load and clock some 115gr in .357.

And you'll probably be able to shoot them in your back yard...

Chris

[ChristopherG]

Sam said the magic word for me: Load.

The case volume, simple shape, and pleasing size of the .38/.357 make it so easy to load a fabulous array of...well...LOADS with it, that besting the 9mm by a goodly margin is just one of the many things you can do with it--from tiny, fast rockets (Sam's forthcoming 115s, methinks), to dead-eye wadcutters, to heavy booming JHPs (think Hornady's 180 gr. xtp) or even bigger hardcast missiles that will punch a hole so deep you can't even see 9mm from there. Naturally, LOAD is also the magic word regarding cost differential. I'll see your $5 a box and discount it by about $2 (not fair, I realize, 'cause 9 is even cheaper to load--but the difference is pretty small).

Discovering what a .38//357 can do has, au contraire, rendered the 9 irrelevant for me.
CG

[Johnny Guest]

I agree with the six repliers above: Nope.

Go back to the first widespread use of auto ctgs in revolvers, the 1917 S&W and Colt types. This was a military expedient because there just weren't enough 1911 types to suffice. The .45 ACP cartridge was a good one, though, and was the standard issue military round, so the 1917 models made a lot of sense.

Ever since that time, the main charm, aside from bullseye target shooting with the .45 ACP, has been mainly stunt shooting, or possibly cheap practice. The 10 mm and .40S&W do nothing in a revolver that the .41 Mag doesn't do better. The 9x19 in revolvers originally had a niche similar to the 1917 .45s.

An entirely new, shorter cylinder, revolver could take advantage of the 9mm as a replacement for .38 SPL, and yield a slightly lighter gun, but it would take away all the versatility of the revolver cartridge.

For everyday use, I prefer a service autopistol, a Commander or occasionally a High Power. This is purely for the purpose of getting me home at night. For all around versatility, though, neither will equal a good DA .357. The size and type are open to discussion, but I believe the basic statement will stand.

Best,
Johnny

[Johnny Guest]

The .357 SiG is a wonderful cartridge within narrow parameters. It was conceived to allow use of a cartridge equivalent to the 125 gr. JHP revolver load in an auto pistol.

It does this pretty well. To consider this "as good" as a .357 revolver, you must always add the qualifier about bullet weight.

If I considered only anti-personnel uses, I could probably get along with a .357 SiG pistol okay. But with a .357 service revolver and proper loads, I also could hunt pretty efficiently and even defend myself against a variety of hefty animals.

Is the .357 Mag a suitable anti-bear arm? Hardly. But with really heavy LSWC handloads or the 180 gr. silhouette or hunting loads, it would do a lot better job than a 125 JHP or FMJ. It's that versatility thing again. ;)

Johnny

PS - - Wasn't it Elgin Cates who took out a Cape Buff using a Smith Highway Patrolman loaded with Remington metal piercing loads a while back? A close thing, to be sure, and a true emergency, but it worked . . . .

[mtnbkr]

You can't beat the versatility of a good wheelgun (ever seen one fitted with wheels? :scrutiny: ) in 357mag. No, it won't kill the big bears, but it'll handle just about anything a person is likely to shoot otherwise.

My 4" GP100 has seen everything from 000 buckshot pellets so slow you could see them in flight to 180gr bullets at 1250fps and 220gr full wadcutters at 900fps.

Chris

[10 Ringer']

I figured as much that your all's responses would run along those lines and I agree, versatility is key and wheelguns and the .38/.357mag (with the possible of exception of Taurus' new little 9mm snubbie) take the cake! Doesn't hurt to ask I guess. Thanks.

[Oracle]

C.R. Sam,

Load and clock them out of a snubby barrel, please. From what I understand, 9mm does better out of a 2 inch barrel than .357 Magnum does, and the latest Ammolab results show .357 Magnums expanding no better than .38 Specials out of 2 inch barrels. I tend to agree, I think that the more efficient 9mm cartridge does a lot better in shorter barrels than the .357 Magnum does.

[EJ]

For power -- accuracy -- versatility -- NO

Popularity and availability -- allready happened

:uhoh:

[snubby]

I think Oracle's probably right about the 9mm (in the 110-125 gr +P flavors) being the ballistic equivalent of the 357 mag (110-125 gr) out of a 2-in revolver barrel. Even if the mag is 50-100 fps faster, I'm not sure the increased recoil/blast would be worth that minimal velocity increase, at least when considering the snub for personal defense against 2-legged critters. The numbers at ammolab seem to bear this out ballistics-wise. Needless to say, 357 mag wins hands-down when it comes to overall versatility with a wide range of loading choices!

[Mike Irwin]

The problem with most .357 Mag. loads is that they're loaded with slower burning powders that are more optimal in longer barrels.

Load them with faster burning powders, though, and you can easily equal the performance of a 115 or 124-gr. 9mm, and then exceed the living hell out of it.

[Oracle]

I'd love to see some Speer Gold Dots in a .357 Mag. load that was effective out of 2 in. barrels, one that would penetrate 12-16 inches in ballistic gelatin, and expand relatively well. I've always liked .357 Mag. snubbies.

However, from what I've seen, the 9mm, esp. 9mm+P, does better than the .357 Mag. in snubnose revolvers, in terms of expansion and penetration in ballistic gelatin. I'd love to see someone prove me wrong, though.