10mm vs. .357 Mag


PDA






NELSONs02
April 16, 2010, 09:58 PM
It's probably been discussed a couple times but I couldn't find any dedicated threads. I've searched on other forums and for some reason this subject brings out a plethora of misleading information. :banghead:

My conclusion is this: With barrels ~5" or less the 10mm wins out in the energy department but add on another two inches or so and the Magnum takes over. That is, a .357 mag out of a 6" barrel will supersede a 10mm out of a 6" barrel (provided the loads are to maximum pressure and the proper bullet weight is selected).

In my comparison I've exclusively looked at two rounds: The Buffalo Bore 125 Grain .357 and the Double Tap 135 grain. I imagine penetration would go to the .357 in any event but these two rounds are very close in terms of muzzle energy. Note: I'm aware that these two loadings wouldn't be the best option for max penetration.

So lets hear what you guys (and gals?) think about this.

If you enjoyed reading about "10mm vs. .357 Mag" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
David E
April 16, 2010, 10:07 PM
To my way of thinking, there is more to consider than simple energy.

For a field/trail gun, I want a one that's fairly compact, concealable and capable of stopping a black bear. I want it to be rugged and easily cleaned out in a stream should it get dropped in the mud or whatever.

I want sufficient capacity since there is no ammo resupply. A quick reload is nice. The reload being compact is also an advantage.

This excludes most revolvers.

MCgunner
April 16, 2010, 10:09 PM
I think it more depends on what you like to carry and what you're going to do with it. I'm a revolver guy and outdoorsman/hunter. for me, there's nothing like 4" at 100 yards accuracy of my Blackhawk. No autoloader I have experience with in 10mm can match that accuracy. Oh, sure, you can spray and pray, has on business in the hunting fields, or anywhere else for that matter. My 180 grain XTP pushes 1400 fps from my Blackhawk. I've taken a few hogs and deer with it. Put a wadcutter in it, dial the sight back up, and go rabbit hunting with the same deadly accuracy for your camp meat.

In defensive guns, .357 revolvers are easier to carry than the few 10s out there, though the Glock 29, if you like Glocks, ain't bad for size. I'll take a 3" SP101 or K frame, myself, though, in the .357 caliber. It's as proven a fight stopper as there is on the street even today, and besides, I have dies and molds for it. :D

W.E.G.
April 16, 2010, 10:09 PM
Buy a copy of Quickload, and you can run those numbers until your fingers fall off.

http://www.neconos.com/details3.htm

Covers everything except tactics and marksmanship.

NELSONs02
April 16, 2010, 10:37 PM
Well if you dies and molds then your opinion may be a little bias haha

I understand the practicality issues with weapons in these calibers and every sitiuation may be different. For example when deer hunting I shouldn't need 15 rounds of 10mm to get the job done. If that'd be the case I think i'd have other issues :rolleyes:

I might have to try out that software though and try to come up with a solid fact-based argument. I just get so upset when novice internet folk say "oh the 10mm is more powerful than the .357 hands down". I know it's like comparing apples to ah.......well apples I guess but it just gets me really fired up.

Those sort of comments are like someone telling me my grandpa sucked at skinning deer or my old truck is never gonna get me any anymore. It just doesn't sit right with me.

MCgunner
April 16, 2010, 10:52 PM
Ballistically, there isn't enough difference in these calibers to worry about. What I'm sayin' is, choose the autoloader if you like autos, the revolver if you like revolvers. That's the main difference. Of course, there is the Smith and Wsson 610 and the Coonan autoloader, but those are exceptions and I really never cared for either gun. I like revolvers in the field, and especially single actions. The Blackhawks are tough, tough handguns. I've never had the occasion to throw it in the mud, but I reckon it'd clean up as easy as any Glock. Push pin retainer, pull pin, drop cylinder, wash out. What's complicated about that? I'm not a trained ninja, though, don't go looking for mud holes to hide in, or mud banks like Rambo did. And, where I've done my hiking, there aren't any mud holes, atop the rather arid and rocky southern New Mexican mountains. That one just ain't a big concern of mine.

LightningMan
April 16, 2010, 10:55 PM
IMHO, I thought the 10mm was very comparable to the .357 mag. Just a quick look at 180 gr. JHP loading data in one of my books (in this case Lee's modern reloading) First on top of the list for .357 shows 12.5 grains of Alliant 2400 gives 1300 fps with 32700 psi. The 10mm top of the list shows 9.7 grains of IMR 800X gives 1320 fps with 34200 psi. They look pretty even to me. LM

jmr40
April 16, 2010, 11:04 PM
I would agree with your conclusions. They are a lot more alike than different. For a strictly hunting handgun I would give the edge to the 357 revolver. Even with a shorter 4" or so barrel because when fired single action most revolvers will be much more accurate. Especially at longer ranges.

When hiking in an area where 2 or 4 legged predators are a possibility I prefer the higher capacity of my G-20 in 10mm. The auto will be more likely to hold up in a dirty environment than a revolver and it is much lighter and more compact. In rapid fire close range shooting I shoot an auto more accurate than a double action revolver.

In short both are very good and have their place.

NELSONs02
April 16, 2010, 11:10 PM
MCgunner: I have a 7.5" Super Blackhawk. They are very rugged revolvers indeed. I understand what you're saying though. There isn't really a need for crunching numbers and going on about energy and what not, just as long as you have the gun that fits your needs. HOWEVER it's extremely tough for me to except people's bias opinions that are usually given without any certain conditions. THIS I think is what I'm struggling with here.

Lightning: The two rounds are almost identical with some loads I just wish the younger crowd (which I'm a part of) would give the .357 the respect it deserves and stop with this whole FBI story obsession.

Especially when they compare the 10mm to the .41 mag. :fire:

MCgunner
April 16, 2010, 11:20 PM
You're quite correct that the 10 doesn't come even close to the .41 magnum. One can handload the .41 to near .44 ballistics. It works at similar pressures, it is .410" vs .429, even nearly the same there! It is limited only in that it can't handle the big 300 grain .44 pills. But, then, I have a Blackhawk in .45 Colt, too, which I'm sure is not considered to be much with the younger set. Yet, I push a 300 grain XTP to 1200 fps with a .451" bullet.

See, that's why I like revolvers, my age, I'm old. I saw Dirty Harry in college at the theater. I never cared much for Miami Mice. I've got autos, but revolvers make the most logic to me outdoors for two reasons, power and versatility. You can shoot small game loads to bear loads from the same revolver with no jams, just usually a sight elevation change. And revolvers can defend you, too, just as they did for all those cops when Dirty Harry came out. .38 and .357 were in the holsters of nearly every LEO in the country back then. Now days, the ninjas have taken over. It's all about Glocks and M4s and mossberg 590s.

LightningMan
April 16, 2010, 11:47 PM
NELSONsO2, IMO comparing the 10mm to the 41 mag is like comparing the .357 sig to the .357 mag. There isn't any comparision. BTW I really respect the .357 mag. and like it a lot, I have five revolvers chambered for it. I once owned a S&W .41 mag & a Glock 10mm but have neither now.

David E
April 17, 2010, 12:16 AM
most posts here are confusing a "woods" handgun with a "hunting" handgun.

Sometimes, they are the same, but more often they are not.

jmortimer
April 17, 2010, 12:19 AM
The .357 is "more gun" for a fact. It's not just more power, it's better SD as well. Nothing wrong with 10mm but the 10mm zombies think it is the be all end all and it's not even close. I'll take my "old fashioned" 11.5mm .45 Colt or even the .357 any day. For a pistol round the 10mm is good but really there are no "great" pistol rounds when it comes to dangerous game.
10mm was designed to kill people and that is where is is best suited, Nothing more.

gofastman
April 17, 2010, 12:59 AM
10mm was designed to kill people and that is where is is best suited, Nothing more.
same with the 25mm.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.357_Magnum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.41_Remington_Magnum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10mm_Auto

The 10mm ballistic performance look pretty close to the .41 to me.

Gryffydd
April 17, 2010, 01:25 AM
The ballistic performance look pretty close to me.
Of course it's possible to find loads that overlap between the 10mm and the 41 Mag, but the fact is, the top end for the 41 is way, way higher than the top end for the 10mm. The 41 can push a 270gr bullet from a 4" barrel faster than the 10 can push a 200gr bullet from a 4.5" barrel.

Between the 10mm and the .357 there's so little difference it's hardly worth considering. Every little advantage one has over the other is countered by somethng else. e.g the 10's larger diameter is offset by the .357's better SD.

Tinman357
April 17, 2010, 02:16 AM
I like all the good points you folks make concerning the .357. I have one and love the versatility of powderpuff .38's to max load 180's out of the same gun.

Glad to see my own conclusions validated by others. I like both and carry both as the mood suits me.

Besides, I like having the equal of 16 .357's in my hand..... :what:

RebelRabbi
April 17, 2010, 06:53 AM
10mm is a superb cartridge that never made it big. .357/.38 Revolvers are the definition of reliability and versatility. I bet there is at least one box of 357 or 38 ammo in every gun shop in America. 10mm can be hard to find.

loadedround
April 17, 2010, 07:40 AM
Sounds like to me that it's the same old which is better controversy all over again...."the 9MM or the 45 ACP". I own both and enjoy both. One is a semiauto round(yea I know the S&W 610) and the other is a revolver round. Flip a coin and be done with it.

Peter M. Eick
April 17, 2010, 10:23 AM
To me they are both about the same. Hot loads in one are about the same as hot loads in the other. On paper the 10mm can be shown to be better while with other stats the 357 mag is better.

I shoot both a lot so I don't see the advantages so much any more.

I moved to the 357 SuperMag (AKA 357 Maximum) for more power.

NELSONs02
April 17, 2010, 11:53 AM
Sounds like to me that it's the same old which is better controversy all over again...."the 9MM or the 45 ACP". I own both and enjoy both. One is a semiauto round(yea I know the S&W 610) and the other is a revolver round. Flip a coin and be done with it.
Not necessarily, I'm not trying to settle which one is better, that would be next to impossible for anyone to agree on. I'm trying to make a judgement on which one is more powerful. I understand the two rounds are almost identical but there is limitations to both cartridges.

I'd like to do some testing the only problem is, is that my .357 is gone (stupid decision on my part) and I don't have a 10mm. I'd like to get two 4" guns and two 6" guns in each caliber and see which ones I can safely produce more energy out of. If I had to go about doing this today that's probably what I'd do.

jmortimer
April 17, 2010, 12:47 PM
You will get more energy out the .357 but we are talking about less than 100 ft lbs. We have the information available. The .357 is going to be up to 800 ft lbs and the 10mm is going to be around 735 ft lbs. Out of five inch barrels we get the following:
10mm http://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=114
.357 http://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=100
The .357 is more gun - more power and better SD. If I had one shot at a black bear the
.357 will penetrate more and that is what you want. For people I'd take the 10mm generally. Both could work either way but both have strong suits.

nitetrane98
April 17, 2010, 12:50 PM
What's always been particularly frustrating to me when trying to compare any type of different calibers is the different weights of all the different projectiles. True apples to apples comparisons would be much easier if you could say, ".357/125gr does this and 10mm/125gr does this and .41 mag does this. While a lot of folks say, "Well energy ain't everything." Maybe so but it's still the only equalizer for comparison available. Even still, outside the lab does 100fps velocity or 100ft/lbs energy really matter above some point?

I love 'em both. But I carry a 10mm because that 8" Colt .357 is really a pain to conceal.

Vern Humphrey
April 17, 2010, 01:02 PM
I like all the good points you folks make concerning the .357. I have one and love the versatility of powderpuff .38's to max load 180's out of the same gun.
And that, I think, is the key. The .357 is versatile.

nitetrane98
April 17, 2010, 01:13 PM
Without straying much further into the "which one is better" zone, I agree about the versatility of the .357 and would add that what the .357 is to revolvers the 10mm is to semi autos.

tipoc
April 17, 2010, 06:23 PM
From NELSONs02:


I'd like to do some testing the only problem is, is that my .357 is gone (stupid decision on my part) and I don't have a 10mm. I'd like to get two 4" guns and two 6" guns in each caliber and see which ones I can safely produce more energy out of. If I had to go about doing this today that's probably what I'd do.

If you want to do this for your own purposes and for fun go on ahead and enjoy. Hand loading would be the best way to proceed and it would be enjoyable to spend a year or two experimenting with various loads for both. If you want to actually find out just the data though others have collected and published that data in both book format and on line so we can see it for ourselves.

I believe you will find that overall (with various bullet weights, types or bullets and powders and barrel lengths) that the .357 Magnum comes out ahead by a bit. It is hard to beat the versatility of the 38/357 from most handguns. As a popular round for decades now there are many bullet types and loads available as well as guns.

The 10mm is no slouch. The round from a 5" or 6" barrel in a tuned 1911 is useful for hunting and can equal or beat a revolver in accuracy. Colt, S&W, Dan Wesson (CZ), EAA Tanfoglio, Glock and others all make guns in 10mm.

For shooters who are more accurate with semis than wheelguns the 10mm can make a good hunting round for game up to black bear size.

The 10mm is less versatile a round than the 38/357 combo but for some shooters and some purposes it can be a better choice.

tipoc

Boomm
April 17, 2010, 08:27 PM
Whenever you are having trouble deciding between two calibers, just imagine being on the receiving end of each. After you do this, choose the one you would rather not be shot with.

In my opinion, as far as 10mm and .357 mag are concerned, it would be equally as bad to be on the receiving end of either.

MCgunner
April 17, 2010, 08:31 PM
I wouldn't wanna be shot with a .22 short, myself. :rolleyes:

Boomm
April 17, 2010, 08:47 PM
Well of course not, but a .357 mag or 10mm will cause exponentially more damage than a .22 short

saturno_v
April 17, 2010, 09:02 PM
Between a 357 Revolver and my S&W 1006 10mm, I would take my 1006 any time of the day...

Almost identical power level (little edge on the 10mm when both at full SAAMI specs), more round capacity, easier and lighter to carry.....and my S&W is dead reliable and accurate.

If I want/need more power, my 44 Mag revolver takes over...there is not much "carryability" difference IMHO between a 357 revolver and a 44 one (assuming same barrel length).

I have no reason to buy a 357 revolver once I have my S&W 1006.

SharpsDressedMan
April 17, 2010, 09:03 PM
I like both rounds, but some things that haven't been covered much are the differences that the larger bored 10mm might make in initial shock and wound channel. In simple terms, all other things being equal, the 10mm will cut a bigger wound channel, just as a .44 or .45 would over the 10mm. This may have some creedence. The other factor is a weapon in 10mm with a 6" barrel and 15 rounds, like the Glock, may offer some significant advantages over a revolver. For game, especially more dangerous game, the Glock can pump more rounds faster into the target. No one says you have to stop at 1,2, or 6 rounds when shooting an animal, especially one that may harm you. Given the choice between a 6" barreled .357, or a Glock with a 6" barrel, I'd probably choose the Glock. Lighter, more "total" power available (utilizing repeat shots), and I could field 2-3 mags (30-45 rounds) for the weight saving over the .357 and 2-3 speedloaders.

m2steven
April 17, 2010, 11:03 PM
I went to Buffalo Bore's site and for heavy 10mm bullet their load panned out at approx 700 ft lbs of energy. 357 mag heavy load achieved approx 800 ft lbs of energy at higher velocity.

But lets get real. 100 ft lbs of energy is quite a big difference, but i'd be perfectly comfortable with 700 from the 10mm.

KBintheSLC
April 18, 2010, 02:02 PM
10mm was designed to kill people and that is where is is best suited, Nothing more.

Not a very strong argument IMO. There are plenty of weapons designed to kill people that work perfectly well on other larger animals... the 10mm included. Actually, a large portion of the cartridges we use for hunting and woods defense originated for the military/LE environment.

As for the OP, the 10mm and .357 Mag are too similar in ballistics to waste much time arguing over. If you prefer to carry a revolver, use a revolver cartridge. If you prefer to carry an auto, use the auto cartridge.

I'm a revolver guy and outdoorsman/hunter. for me, there's nothing like 4" at 100 yards accuracy of my Blackhawk. No autoloader I have experience with in 10mm can match that accuracy. Oh, sure, you can spray and pray, has on business in the hunting fields, or anywhere else for that matter.

As for the accusations that carrying an auto somehow implies that you are of the "spray and pray" crowd, or less of a so-called "outdoorsman"... gimmie a friggin break. Autos have sights just light a revolver. Some of us even know how to use them. I also own revolvers, but I get a little sick of the revolver crowd making these baseless assumptions about auto owners.

gearhead
April 18, 2010, 02:39 PM
I'm a semi-auto guy, personally. But when my wife asked me to get her a nightstand gun I got her a revolver because it was the safest and simplest thing for her to have should she ever need it. Likewise, I seriously considered getting a 10mm for a woods/camping/hiking gun but in the end I voted with my wallet for a .357 revolver. I don't want the heft of a .44 mag and didn't want to deal with the expense and scarcity of 10mm since I don't currently plan to reload. I feel equally safe with either caliber and I don't feel that having twice the capacity (and twice the ammo weight) is needed for my application.

MCgunner
April 18, 2010, 02:58 PM
As for the accusations that carrying an auto somehow implies that you are of the "spray and pray" crowd, or less of a so-called "outdoorsman"... gimmie a friggin break. Autos have sights just light a revolver. Some of us even know how to use them. I also own revolvers, but I get a little sick of the revolver crowd making these baseless assumptions about auto owners.

I make now accusations other than autos do not meet my standards of accuracy. An auto that shoots 2" at 25 yards is a match grade auto. Half that is the norm for a good revolver right out of the box. You don't seem many autoloaders at an IHMSA shoot, now do ya? If you're going to take a 100 yard shot at game with a gun that won't group better than 12 MOA, you are going to be FORCED to spray and pray, even if deliberate and slow. If you can find a 4MOA autoloader that doesn't jam, go for it if that's your preference. I haven't seen one, though, except for a Desert Eagle that might as well have a carbine stock on it as it weighs more than most. That said, I do shoot a Contender from the deer stand occasionally, no small gun it its own right. :D

Polar Express
April 18, 2010, 03:52 PM
Thanks for starting the thread and the replies, I've really enjoyed reading this!

I don't claim to be a ballistics professor. And, I haven't read a whole lot of data, but what I have seen, these two rounds sure seem close in most of the math categories.

The recurring issue that seems to be the major separator is personal preference on platform. I would humbly suggest that is more of the underlying question/debate of this thread. If you're an 'auto-loader' person, then go with the 10mm. But, if you're a 'revolver' person, then go with the .357.

IMO, if I'm going HUNTING with a handgun, I think I would lean towards a scoped wheel gun, (clearly, this depends on the terrain). But, if I'm just out in the woods, and I want a sidearm for defensive purposes (against human or critters) I think I would lean towards the auto-loader. That being said, the handgun hunting is a theoretical idea for me, as I do not currently have an interest in 'handgun hunting'. (I am in no way casting dispersions on that activity, just doesn't interest me at the moment)

But, my biases are my biases. Each platform has pros, and cons. While I respect the history of the revolver, (I'm even considering getting started in CAS) I prefer the attributes of the auto-loader platform.

Again, in my mind, I sometimes think of the total power in the gun. (Now, this concept does not always ring true, as Gryffydd brought to my attention last year in an exchange involving the FN5.7 - and I thank him for that) but, someone did bring up the general concept in this thread already: Without a reload, a .357 revolver holds 6. (If there is a revolver out there that holds more, I am unaware) and a 10mm auto-loader holds a lot more. (Dan Wesson Rz-10 holds 9+1, Glock 20 holds 15+1) So, without a reload, the overall total power in the auto-loader 10mm is greater than the 6-shot revolver.

Sure, if you're trying to hit a target at 100 yards, a scoped wheel-gun would be superior (hence my statement above) But, if you have a fast moving aggressor coming at you, whatever platform you are most comfortable, and likely most practiced at is probably the one I'd want on my leg.

Funny thing is, I actually own a really nice S&W stainless .357 revolver, but I don't own a 10mm auto-loader. Go figure.:rolleyes: Maybe I should post a trade in the classified section.

PE

SharpsDressedMan
April 18, 2010, 04:01 PM
I have hunted whitetail deer and mule dear with a handgun. I would not take a 100 yard shot with a handgun on deer without a scope. However, when I think of woodswalking, and a PRACTICAL handgun for trail, hiking, packing, and hunting in general, it would not include a scope....that would just be too bulky to be comfortable hiking, etc. Thus, whatever gun I packed in a holster would be a less-than-100yd gun. Any difference in accuracy at 50-75 yards between a .357 and 10mm without the use of a scope would probably not be that big. Practical accuracy in the field is different than pistols scoped and bagged. From all the above, though, it seems the .357 is the popular choice, and answer to the question. I'd still choose the 10mm Glock for its comfort on the hip. When hiking, weight does become a factor.

MCgunner
April 18, 2010, 04:19 PM
Well, I don't worry so much about zombie ninjas out in the woods. I guess theoretically you could stumble upon a marijuana patch or a pack of mojados with their armed coyotes or banditos hauling cocaine or something, in theory, never knew it to happen to anyone I knew, though. Getting a lot rougher down in the big bend area now days, though, and hell, I might go for the firepower along the border now days. Yeah, I'm a little more paranoid down there. I worry more about 2 legged critters in the concrete jungle, a lot more, but you could run into deliverance I guess and, hell, it made for a good movie even when all they had was bows. :D I can see the value of an autoloader in the bend, though, I mean, since I can't carry a SAW legally down there. That's a whole nuther situation.

A cat or bear is going to be on you so fast, that magazine full of ammo is going to just be dead weight. I doubt you'll get a second shot off. You might not get the first one off, especially with a cat. That, too, is very low risk IMHO.

Anyway, I have much admiration for the ballistics of the 10mm, but like you said, it's a platform thing for me. In the outdoor roll, revolvers rule with me. Too, if I'm going to carry a G20's weight, I'd rather be packin' my .45 Colt blackhawk pushing a 300 grain bullet to 1000 ft lbs. Why not? I agree, though, I've always preferred a lighter gun in .357 magnum if hiking or back packing. Don't need .44 magnum power where I have hiked, nothing bigger than black bear and cats. Either the 10 or the .357 will do fine and on humans, the same. The threat leave is so low doing such activities, though, I feel light is right. A 3 to 5" M60 with adjustables has always seemed like it might be ideal for such, though I've carried K frame 4" guns with no problem. I do like having an adjustable sight just so I can set the sight for .38 special if I'm looking for camp meat. As good as the little SP101s are, their sights are fixed.

Ya know what? Just thinkin' about it, if I ever go back to the bend, I'll just take my P90. It shoots nearly as good as a revolver, about 1.5" groups at 25. Only thing, a 10mm shoots a lot flatter out in that open country. Supposedly, Ruger was designing the P90 for the 10. If they ever come out with a P90 in 10mm, I think I might just be a customer. It'll never happen, though. The old style P guns are off Ruger's radar, it seems. I won't consider a glock for several reasons. First, they don't shoot lead without an aftermarket barrel and I won't own a gun that won't shoot lead. I cast, it's what I do. That's enough to keep me away from Glock and there are few other 10s on the market that aren't HUGE or 1911s and I consider the 1911 not quite enough gun for the high pressure 10mm loads, tough on those guns.

BTW, I like to keep my iron sighted shots on deer to 50 yards with .357. I can hit 4"-6" groups at 100 yards all day at the range off shooting stix, though. I amaze the rifle guys sometimes. My cheater gun, a 12" Contender in .30-30 has a 2x scope on it. I can group that gun 3" at 200 yards off sand bags and have taken deer to 90 yards so far, which is a long shot out on my place being as it's mighty brushy. Very simply, the more accurate the gun, the more confident I am with it. Confidence means a lot.

GunsBeerFreedom
April 18, 2010, 05:48 PM
I prefer the 10, but mostly for the platform. Not that I don't admire and love revolvers (I do), I just prefer autos for certain things. Plus, from a handloading standpoint, the 10 can handle larger pills then the 357, or at least that's what I've seen.

But what do I really know? I've never had to use my 10 or anything else in anger, and every excursion in the woods I've made has only nabbed me a soar backside, not any game.

Mastiff
April 18, 2010, 09:57 PM
FWIW, I'm just going to throw in the 9x23 Winchester into the deal. It isn't exactly a well known cartridge, but I think it is worth mentioning. You get 357 Magnum ballistics in an autoloader, with the SD of the 357. You also get the easier reloads, lower flash, and less recoil than the 357 with the 9x23.
I reload, and I make my own 9x23 Winchester brass out of 223 cases. I get the once fired brass at 2500 cases for $115 delivered (less than 2 pennies a case, and they can be reloaded nearly forever). I load 357 bullets, the extra mm doesn't make enough of a difference in pressure to worry about.

SniperStraz
April 18, 2010, 10:44 PM
For all you wheel gunners out there, don’t let the platform make you miss out on the caliber. S&W makes a Model 610 in 10mm.
http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&langId=-1&productId=65062&tabselected=tech&isFirearm=Y&parent_category_rn=

joneb
April 18, 2010, 10:50 PM
As for the OP, the 10mm and .357 Mag are too similar in ballistics to waste much time arguing over. If you prefer to carry a revolver, use a revolver cartridge. If you prefer to carry an auto, use the auto cartridge.

I agree,
I carry a .357 mag. for outdoor defense and I would be comfortable with a 10mm but I shoot my Ruger Sec Six quite well and it always goes bang. So my logic here is "if it ain't broke.........But if packs of wild dogs and wolfs were ravaging outdoorfolk I might reconsider :uhoh:

NELSONs02
April 18, 2010, 11:08 PM
For all you wheel gunners out there, don’t let the platform make you miss out on the caliber. S&W makes a Model 610 in 10mm.
http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&langId=-1&productId=65062&tabselected=tech&isFirearm=Y&parent_category_rn=
I'd take a revolver in 10mm for free..... ha! Just kidding

Well guys a bunch of good opinions here. We've discussed the practical uses for both calibers/guns to a pretty good extent but the consensus I'm getting here is that the .357 mag is slightly superior as far as wallop is concerned.

I don't know if I'll ever have both guns to do any testing for myself but as one member mentioned, the numbers are out there. Now, if I could only get a decent job and some money maybe I could start reloading.

JWJacobVT
April 18, 2010, 11:41 PM
Remember the S&W 610 can shoot 40 S&W also. Anywho, normally for hunting I carry my Smith 44 and at 100 yrds, I get 6 inch groups open sights. Everyday and woodswalking, I carry the Smith 1006 or 1066, I can make a milk jug dance with either at 80 yrds so I think thats just fine. Funny in all the reloading books I have the 10mm shooting a 180 grain jhp at 1350fps and 728 ftlbs. The 357 is 1300fps and 676 ftlbs for the same weight/style bullet. So I am not sure were you folks are getting your numbers.

Drako
April 19, 2010, 12:26 AM
Boils down to personal preferance! an assigned duties to the choice rounds, obviously ballistics don't lie but both rounds would do several similar duties with sucess. The question is kinda like asking three cooks what is the best way too cook chicken. They all three could think there way is right, but actually none of them are wrong its just what they personally prefer.

MCgunner
April 19, 2010, 06:56 AM
For all you wheel gunners out there, don’t let the platform make you miss out on the caliber. S&W makes a Model 610 in 10mm.
http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/w...t_category_rn=

If I'm going to carry an N frame, I can carry .41 or .44 magnum, either one of which is ballistically superior. I think I'd like to get into the .41. It's kind of a cult caliber like the 10. :D


FWIW, I'm just going to throw in the 9x23 Winchester into the deal. It isn't exactly a well known cartridge, but I think it is worth mentioning. You get 357 Magnum ballistics in an autoloader, with the SD of the 357. You also get the easier reloads, lower flash, and less recoil than the 357 with the 9x23.
I reload, and I make my own 9x23 Winchester brass out of 223 cases. I get the once fired brass at 2500 cases for $115 delivered (less than 2 pennies a case, and they can be reloaded nearly forever). I load 357 bullets, the extra mm doesn't make enough of a difference in pressure to worry about.

I'm not real familiar with the caliber except I was thinkin' it was an IPSC thing for "making major". Can you push a 180 or 200 grain pill with it with any authority? If it's .355" diameter, heavier than 147 grains is probably not even available. Therefore, not in the same league as the .357 for outdoor use. Paper energy ain't the whole story.

I still think the revolver's big ace in the hole is versatility, light loads for small game (if you care anything about hunting or perhaps survival afield) and heavy for big.

I'm often yelling at the TV when watching Bear Grylles. "YOU IDIOT! All you need is a .38 and you wouldn't have to throw that stick at that rabbit!" :D Of course, I guess, if you don't mind eating bugs.........:barf:

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
April 19, 2010, 01:48 PM
My conclusion is this: With barrels ~5" or less the 10mm wins out in the energy department but add on another two inches or so and the Magnum takes over.

That sums it up nicely for me. Out of a standard handgun, I'll take a 10mm - more capacity in the semi-auto too. Out of a carbine or long-bbl'ed handgun, gimme the .357 Mag!

Skylerbone
April 19, 2010, 08:05 PM
Nelson do yourself a favor: go out looking for large pistol primers to reload 10mm. Now I don't have all day here so let's cut to the chase, you didn't find them did you. You can expect that to be the norm for some time. Small pistol primers are getting scarce but are still available (even locally for me). They are specified for .38 special and many .357 loads as well as .40 cal. I mention this because while I have 3000 primers for my .40 & .357, my father's 1911 is now shooting factory rounds till??? According to two local dealers there isn't a large pistol primer on the distributor level in the US at present. Wanna wait 3 more years and hope we vote him out? Wanna pay the asking price for 10mm loaded ammo? Just a consideration.

Kitt
April 19, 2010, 08:39 PM
To each his own...:)
http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo130/LWKITT/IM000540.jpg

Gryffydd
April 19, 2010, 09:09 PM
Nelson do yourself a favor: go out looking for large pistol primers to reload 10mm. Now I don't have all day here so let's cut to the chase, you didn't find them did you. You can expect that to be the norm for some time.
If he did that around here he'd find them just fine.

Thatguy686
September 2, 2010, 11:10 PM
it would really like others have said depend on what your using it for i personally when hiking hunting camping or whatever i open carry my stainless 4 inch .357 magnum and conceal a glock 29 so win win

Full Metal Jacket
September 3, 2010, 02:45 AM
And that, I think, is the key. The .357 is versatile.

these posts stating the 357 magnum to be more versatile are funny.

i have both. there are low power 10mm better suited for defense (that are still hotter than 40cal), and hot ones better for hunting/wild animal protection. how is the 357mag more versatile than that?

not to mention, there isn't a 357mag that match a full bore 10mm out of the glock 6 inch hunting barrel.

wow6599
September 3, 2010, 07:52 AM
The 10mm has changed me. I have gotten rid of all my .357 Mag revolvers except for my SP101 3", and I hang on to that to mate-up with my Marlin 1894c.....+ I reload and .357 is easy to roll. But, if they ever come out with a Marlin or Winchester lever action (I don't think it's possible) in 10mm, the Ruger & Marlin might be sold and funds deposited in the Ed Brown collection jar.

Full Metal Jacket
September 3, 2010, 07:54 AM
The 10mm has changed me.


:eek:

hardluk1
September 3, 2010, 08:30 AM
You go to BB for factory loads that sell 3 loads hotter than anythey or anyone sells for factory 10 mm and the pore oll 357 can be bought with more choice out of most any store in america. The lightest factory loads or not nearly as light or as accurate as good oll 38 wadcutters. Anf the 357 has many more choices for handguns and short rifles. If i want a harder hitting cartridge than a 357 it will be a 44 mag. !0mm is a great round for semiautos but its just another round to play with. Hand loaders can still pull more out of ether round but that still make loads for a revolver easier to play with. Not many 10mm anythings can shoot with a factory bought long barreled revolver at longer distance like a 100 yards, maybe 25. Just another cartridge

Full Metal Jacket
September 3, 2010, 08:39 AM
Hand loaders can still pull more out of ether round but that still make loads for a revolver easier to play with. Not many 10mm anythings can shoot with a factory bought long barreled revolver at longer distance like a 100 yards, maybe 25. Just another cartridge

huh?

guess you didn't see hickok's 10mm g29 video. over 200 yards with 3.78inch barrel ;)

hardluk1
September 3, 2010, 08:50 AM
FMJ do we want to pull info for evey shooter that has got lucky or practices for that distance compaired to the average shooter or hunter???? How about a 45 derringer at 100 yards shooting some little a** target?? Oh ,you see Micklic shooting a little pocket pistol upside down at 200 yards??? The 10mm is no wonder cartridge ,just another one to play with. Buy what you want and shoot it.
Here's a real question for you. You can put a 40s&w barrel in a glock and shoot them with just a spring change added right, guys also buy 9mm barrel for there 40's and shoot the 9mm also ,so can you also shoot 9mm in a 10mm with a barrel and spring change?

wow6599
September 3, 2010, 08:56 AM
Not many 10mm anythings can shoot with a factory bought long barreled revolver at longer distance like a 100 yards, maybe 25. Just another cartridge
Not even close to the truth.....they both hold their energy very well out to 100 yards. It gets tossed around a lot, but it's true - a 10mm has the same/more energy at 100 yards as a .45 ACP at the muzzle.

Here's a long range comparison between the 357 and 10 - http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-367244.html

wow6599
September 3, 2010, 09:22 AM
Here is some data from Buffalo Bore -

6" Ruger GP100 and 180 gr JHP @ 100 yards - 1401.6 fps & 785 ft/lbs

They don't have a G20 with a 6" barrel listed, but it should be something like this - 220 gr HCFN @ 100 yards - 1112.1 fps & 604 ft/lbs

Now, the numbers look stronger for the .357 until you think about it. the 10mm is sending a bullet down range that is 40 gr heavier and larger in diameter.

My point is, they are both flat shooting, long range (for handgun) cartridges.
And I own and handload both.

Full Metal Jacket
September 3, 2010, 09:33 AM
FMJ do we want to pull info for evey shooter that has got lucky or practices for that distance compaired to the average shooter or hunter???? How about a 45 derringer at 100 yards shooting some little a** target?? Oh ,you see Micklic shooting a little pocket pistol upside down at 200 yards??? The 10mm is no wonder cartridge ,just another one to play with. Buy what you want and shoot it.
Here's a real question for you. You can put a 40s&w barrel in a glock and shoot them with just a spring change added right, guys also buy 9mm barrel for there 40's and shoot the 9mm also ,so can you also shoot 9mm in a 10mm with a barrel and spring change?

i only bought my g29 a couple weeks ago, but you're claims of it being only a 25 yard round is incorrect. even the 40cal/9mm can be fired at 100yards+ with reasonable accuracy (with practice). handgun hunters that use 44/500 magnums go much further. you should read up on ballistics/handgun hunting, my friend.

you can do a 40cal conversion to the g29. however, i have no reason to do so, as i already have several 40cals.



nobody's claiming the 10mm to be any sort of wonder cartridge, but as it can be loaded to surpass 357mag power, and in a 15+1 platform, it's performance is pretty impressive.

hardluk1
September 3, 2010, 10:56 AM
Heck a 22 can be shot to a 100 yards with reasonable accuracy. I have hunted with handguns for 30+ years and own'd 357's & 44's back them too. Use to play at shooting bowling pins in the mid 70's with the 357's and 44's a couple guys had 45lc. Back then 200yards was about the limit of play but to try to kill? We can allways talk about elmer keith, the 44mag and his 400 yard kills. Smart, heck no. My point is how accurate is you average 10mm at 25 yards and then 100 yards, not the energy. Energy is close when bullet wieghts are egual and long range shooters tend to load heavier bullets with less than max power than we all shoot typicaly. Its all about accuracy. If a 10mm in a semi-auto was the cat a** of pistols eveyone would want one or own one. I own a great 357 and a 44mag . I also own several 38's, 22's, carry a 9mm and for fun and comp shooting a 40 and 9mm upper kit for it too. For me, can't understand why i would even conceder a 10mm. Guys that my buy a 10mm first may never under stand a 357 so be it. If i want energy on target there are many rounds better. Not many semi-autos i have ever seen can shoot long or do shoot long range compititions with the accuracy of revolvers. I don't care what a person owns just don't try to pass the 10 off as a great do all gun. IT is just another caliber out there. Better than some, no better than others. And no it is no better than a 357 or has as wide a choice of factory loads to choice from. It my be impressive for the average semi-auto. just ain't everyones first choice or wants.

Full Metal Jacket
September 3, 2010, 11:30 AM
energy equating to stopping power in most popular handgun calibers is a myth. it's wound channel size & penetration that counts. that's where you'll find the 10mm excels.

i like this video :D: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSq96T-UrJ0

gofastman
September 3, 2010, 11:39 AM
please let this thread die

JoelSteinbach
September 3, 2010, 12:36 PM
I love them both, my pocket weapon is a S&W 360PD, and I own 11 10mm wepons including the original Smith 610 Recently acquired Kimber Eclipse in 10mm.

Full Metal Jacket
September 3, 2010, 12:45 PM
please let this thread die

is someone forcing you to read & post on it? :confused:

Confederate
September 3, 2010, 03:18 PM
Threads like this are like arguing quantum physics and parallel universes. The basic reality is that both calibers are highly effective and great manstoppers. Both have high levels of energy, recoil and flash.

The .357 w/light bullet loads (125gr JHP) do not have excessive penetration, yet they can penetrate vehicles, tires and so forth. Plus they can take the lighter loadings of .38 Special, and they can be loaded hot or standard.

Not only that, revolvers tend to be more robust than autos. Springs don't need changing and you don't have to worry about frames or slides fracturing. Revolvers also tend to be a bit more accurate at longer ranges. That and ammo availability give the .357 an edge in my view.

That said, I think the 10mm is an astounding caliber. If I could get one in a fine steel setup, like the S&W 5906, I'd snatch it up in a heartbeat!

Confederate
September 3, 2010, 04:08 PM
I have both. There are low power 10mm better suited for defense (that are still hotter than 40cal), and hot ones better for hunting/wild animal protection. How is the 357mag more versatile than that?
There's more to versatility than just ability. How many ammo places sell all these 10mm? Almost every store sells .38 and .357; but 10mm in any loadings are much more difficult to find.

...not to mention, there isn't a 357mag that match a full bore 10mm out of the glock 6 inch hunting barrel.
Match it in what way? Now you're bringing in a specialized hunting barrel. A .357 revolver like a Security-Six with a 6-inch barrel can be used for defense or target shooting. It can use any .38 or .357 ammo without changing barrels or springs, and that ammo is readily available almost anywhere. And though it may lack the same punch of a hot 10mm round out of a Glock specilized hunting barrel, I suspect it would be close.

In the end, the 10mm can compete with the .357, but it requires changes in springs, barrels and finding the ammo. Even reloading 10mm is more expensive.

Although I would feel very comfortable with a 10mm pistol in the field, I'd always be more comfortable with a .357 or .41 revolver.

Full Metal Jacket
September 3, 2010, 04:43 PM
There's more to versatility than just ability. How many ammo places sell all these 10mm? Almost every store sells .38 and .357; but 10mm in any loadings are much more difficult to find.

almost every gunshop in my area has some form of 10mm in stock, ordering online is easy as well ;)


Match it in what way? Now you're bringing in a specialized hunting barrel.

the 10mm doesn't match the 357mag, it exceeds it in penetration, energy, and permanent wound cavity. even out of the standard G20 barrel.


I'd always be more comfortable with a .357 or .41 revolver.

i haven't gotten rid of my trusty s&w 357mag either :)

hardluk1
September 4, 2010, 03:14 PM
Confrederate He just don't get it. Just another caliber, better some,worse than others. I guess a 357 with 200 gr a with 800 ft lbs is worse, along with several at 750 + ft bl's.

agtman
September 4, 2010, 09:05 PM
Typically, the "10mm v. .357" comparison devolves into a wheel-gun v. autoloader debate, which is silly. :scrutiny:

On the velocity and energy stats, the .357 fans talk a good game with 6"+ barrel-lengths, but in fact most who're actually carry a .357 wheely are packin' a 3" or less snubnose.

While the Glock 29 sports a 3.8" tube, most 10mm fans are packing a 4.25", 4.6" or 5" 10mm autoloader, which means the differences in real-world barrel lengths between the auto & wheel-gun have to be taken into consideration - even assuming both sets of fans are using the high(est)-performance loadings of their chosen cartridge.

But unless you're packing a 5" Coonan .357 mag auto, it's hard to compete with this ...

S&W 10mm 1006.
http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo166/agtman/am_other-10mm-1.jpg

'Nough said ... :cool:

Gryffydd
September 4, 2010, 09:35 PM
Most people carry a 3" or less .357 specifically because they're not huge and bulky like the 1006. When I do carry a .357 it's a 5" GP100. What some people choose to carry doesn't change the capabilities of the cartridge.

Deaf Smith
September 4, 2010, 10:17 PM
Well Buffalo Bore does make it interesting! And from the data below say both are real good.

I like the idea of a 4 inch GP-100 firing a 170gr JHP at 1411 fps, and an 10mm 220 at 1201 from a 5 inch 1911 style 10mm. Both pack a wollop.

10mm:

220gr. Hard Cast plain based LFN @ 1201 fps - (Para Ordinance 1911 with Nowlin 5 inch barrel)
200 gr. FMJ 1,200fps/M.E. 639 ft.lbs.
180 gr. JHP 1,350fps/M.E. 728 ft. lbs.

.357 Magnum

1. 3 inch S&W J frame

180gr. Hard Cast LFN @ 1302 fps
170gr. JHC @ 1299 fps
158gr. JHP @ 1398 fps
125gr. JHP @ 1476 fps

2. 4 inch S&W L frame Mt. Gun

180gr. Hard cast LFN @ 1375 fps
170gr JHC @ 1411 fps
158gr. JHP @ 1485 fps
125gr. JHP @ 1603 fps

3. 5 inch S&W model 27

180gr. Hard Cast @ 1398 fps
170gr. JHC @ 1380 fps
158gr. JHP @ 1457 fps
125gr. JHP @ 1543 fps

antiquus
September 4, 2010, 10:25 PM
.357

I don't have to chase my brass.

Besides out of a 18.5" Marlin 1894 Buffalo Bore advertises 2298fps/1468 M.E.

How's DAT for sum forum commando sh*t?

hardluk1
September 5, 2010, 07:59 AM
antiquus That would make a good short range deer gun

agtman
September 5, 2010, 10:21 AM
Most people carry a 3" or less .357 specifically because they're not huge and bulky like the 1006. When I do carry a .357 it's a 5" GP100. What some people choose to carry doesn't change the capabilities of the cartridge.


Choice of barrel-length surely does "change the capabilities of the cartridge," for obviously the shorter the tube the less is the fps/fpe outout.

That's the point with all the shorty .357mag snubbies for concealed carry. The short barrel gives up a lot of the vaunted energy of the .357mag (usually discussed glowingly in the context of 5" or 6" guns), while the shooter endures more muzzle blast, flash, felt-recoil, and concussive effect. :rolleyes:

Yeah, the 1006 ain't light (no worse than a full-size 1911, really) but if I want weight-reduction there's the 4.6" G20.

antiquus
September 5, 2010, 10:43 AM
antiquus That would make a good short range deer gun

It certainly would. That's 30-30 performance out to100 yds.

amd6547
September 5, 2010, 10:51 AM
The 10mm is a great cartridge. I used to own a S&W 1006 and loved shooting it...Accurate and reliable. But, I got tired of having to order ammo...It was never available in my area, either at shops or gun shows.
I have become a fan of the 357mag/38spl...I own a 4" 686-1, and a 2.5" Model 19-4. Both are very accurate. I find ammo virtually anywhere I stop...lower cost plinking ammo to high-power game or SD loads. The versatility of being able to go from 38spl wadcutters which barely recoil, to high power magnum loads, all with great accuracy appeals to me.
There is one 10mm weapon I would buy in a moment if it existed in reasonably priced form...a light handy carbine. The 10mm seems like the perfect light SD carbine round to me.

Gryffydd
September 5, 2010, 11:26 AM
Choice of barrel-length surely does "change the capabilities of the cartridge,"
:what: So, because somewhere somebody has made a .357 Magnum with a 1" barrel, my 5" barreled .357 has magically lost velocity? :what:

Barrel length changes the capabilities and performance of a GUN, not a cartridge.

The short barrel gives up a lot of the vaunted energy of the .357mag
It sure does. Good thing there are still PLENTY of long barreled .357s around!
By your logic, the .357 is actually far more powerful because when you stick it into an 18" barrel it gains 400-500fps while the 10mm only gains 50-200.

while the shooter endures more muzzle blast, flash, felt-recoil, and concussive effect
Shoot a 10mm in a 1.5" barrel and see how much lost velocity, blast, flash, and recoil you get. You'll get PLENTY. Oh wait, they don't make a 10mm with a barrel that short because there's basically only Glock, a few 1911s, and 1 or 2 S&W revolvers chambered in 10mm :neener:

The 10mm seems like the perfect light SD carbine round to me.
While it still wouldn't be bad, don't expect much velocity gain from the longer barrel like you get with the .357.
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/10mm.html


*****
P.S. I really do think the 10mm is great, and if A. I disliked revolvers and B. Somebody made one in a configuration that suits me, I'd buy one in a heartbeat. Heck, even if only B happened...

Zoogster
September 5, 2010, 12:04 PM
I like them both.

The .357 magnum became the standard in the 20th century for reliable self defense, law enforcement, and makes a great trail gun and defensive gun for medium sized predators.
It can be used for things like deer if the shooter does their part, but many hunters move up to a .44 Magnum with more forgiveness.

The 10mm is quite similar to the .357, does most of the same things and fills most of the same roles well, but is in an auto with higher capacity and faster reloads.
The 10mm brings most of the figures and consequently most of the reputation of the .357 Magnum in the field into an auto platform.


I personally find shooting identical loads easier from an auto easier because the action absorbs a lot of the initial recoil impulse, greatly reducing perceived if not actual recoil. It mellows it out.
I also find rapid accurate fire easier with a 10mm, and in defensive roles I find such fire more important than slow precision fired shots with a pause between each.


Many revolvers, including many in .357 magnum are built more robust than your average autoloader. For this reason it is often possible to load a cartridge far beyond what is typical. They also fully enclose most of the cartridge before and after firing, providing complete support the entire time the brass is containing pressure.
So you can get the .357 into stranger territory in some of the large frame revolvers, especially those frames designed for a .44 magnum or larger that were chambered in .357 Magnum.
A .357 Redhawk for example can take more than your typical 10mm auto.

At the same time if you drop the 10mm Auto into the .357 Magnum caliber (9mm), you can get some pretty high velocity and energy figures as well.
This is done, it is called the 9x25 Dillon a 10mm auto necked down to take 9mm rounds.
Since the cartridge is essentially a 10mm all that is necessary to use it in any 10mm semi-auto handgun is a barrel change.
The muzzle blast and noise from this cartridge is intense though. Not something I would want to use without hearing protection.
Because of the massive amount of extra gas you also gain large boosts in velocity when you start adding barrel length with this cartridge. The figures of this cartridge often exceed those of the .357 Magnum.



Both .357 and 10mm are great rounds. They are interchangeable in many of the same roles being more alike than different.
So it really just comes down to an autoloader or revolver preference.

hardluk1
September 5, 2010, 05:19 PM
amd6547 If the 357 carbin won't do it the 44 will. Probably never will be a 10mm in rifle form. Still with the 44 more choices of ammo to buy ,I bet some of the hot 44 loads would work well on bigger game.

OrangePwrx9
September 5, 2010, 10:30 PM
The versatility of being able to go from 38spl wadcutters which barely recoil, to high power magnum loads, all with great accuracy appeals to me.

^^This! Versatility is the key. Reliable functioning over the full range from .38 Spcl target loads to big-game magnum loads is what makes me love the .357. My 4" Sec. Six will even shoot my favorite target wadcutter load to the same POI at 25 yds as it does full-power 125 gr magnum loads. What's not to love?

As if that's not enough, any 357 load I cook up for the revolvers, shoots even better out of my Marlin 1894CS.

OTOH, I like my semi-autos (9mms and a .45ACP). But, try as I might, it's never progressed to love.
Bob

Kitt
September 5, 2010, 11:18 PM
I really like both calibers and my favorite 357 is a Colt King Cobra with a 6" barrel...BUT my favorite 10mm is a Dan Wesson / CZ BobTail that is built like a tank and shoots some outstanding groups...If you ever get the chance to shoot one of the CBOBs go for it. I use the 9 shot Shooting Star 10mm mags loaded with the Hornady XTP HP bullets and the combination is very accurate and 100% reliable. The only changes I made were to change the trigger and added an angle bore barrel bushing...its really a nice package for the money.http://i368.photobucket.com/albums/oo130/LWKITT/bushmaster015.jpg

harmon rabb
September 6, 2010, 05:48 PM
I'd rather hunt with .357 for a sweet SA trigger pull and longer sight radius, but I'd rather carry a 10mm for self defense due to the additional firepower.

wanderinwalker
September 6, 2010, 09:13 PM
I think the .357 is a hard cartridge to beat for versatility, utility and availability. It's powerful enough for hunting medium game when stoked with full-power soft points and hard cast bullets. Loaded with .38 wadcutters I can probably teach all but the most timid of beginners how to handle a .357 revolver. Loads are available everywhere you can find a few boxes of ammo and if there's a new handgun bullet design being introduced, you can bet you will see it in a .357-358" offering.

Also, a 4" K-frame or Ruger -Six series is a fairly compact, portable and fast handling piece of weaponry. I have a Milt Sparks scabbard holster that came with my Model 19 that makes carrying it a breeze, so long as a long over garment is used. A 4" barrel does hang down quite a ways! :eek:

That said, a 10mm is one of the few autopistol cartridges I haven't tried but want to. The only strike is, IMO, it is an autopistol round. It's effective operating window is narrower than the revolver round, just by nature of having to function a semi-auto mechanism. (I have loaded lots of 9mm and .45 for semi-automatics, and know for sure your low semi-auto ammo can't go as low as a revolver round, while at the high end super-power loads provide *ahem* vigorous functioning. Neither is an issue with the revolver; as long as the bullet comes out the barrel, it's powerful enough and you don't have to change springs to compensate for increased punch at the top of the scale.)

Seven For Sure
September 26, 2010, 05:43 PM
The 10mm is a superior SD round when the threat is coming from other humans. I'll take a 155 gr. .401 @ 1450 over a 125 gr. .357 @ 1550 any day for two legged animals.

A 4.5" Glock is a much more practical sidearm than a 6" revolver when hunting or hiking (unless you're hunting with a 357mag lever action). Even then, a 4" steel revolver is a lot of gun to tote as backup. The argument here should be between ballistics from a 3" tube because my 3" 686+ is the same size as my 20. It's heavier and has a 9 rd. capacity disadvantage but layed on top of one another the bottoms of the grips and barrels are even at the same time. We could compare ballistics from a 4.5" 357mag to a 20 w/ 6" barrel and slide but it would'nt make things look any better. You'd gain an easy 150 with 357 but you'd gain an easy 100 with the 10 also.

If we can agree a .401 200 gr. HC @ 1250 will penetrate the skulls and break the bones of most animals on earth, what do wee need a .357 180 gr. HC @ 1250 for? It's not going to hit as hard and all through and through's are not equal. I'll take the one that exits and lands two feet behind the attacker over one that lands 200 ft. behind it. Enery transfer, more momentum and bigger holes are the advantages of the 10mm.

I'll be the first to admit for primary hunting the S&W revolver in SA is a better platform than the Glock 20. I hav'nt shot one of those nice 1911's in 10mm but I could also shoot better with a S&W in SA than I could with some pretty nice 1911's in 45ACP. That's why I have a 6.5" 610.

Gryffydd
September 26, 2010, 06:52 PM
We could compare ballistics from a 4.5" 357mag to a 20 w/ 6" barrel and slide but it would'nt make things look any better. You'd gain an easy 150 with 357 but you'd gain an easy 100 with the 10 also.
Between a 4" and 6" barrel the .357 gains over 200fps, the 10mm gains only about 100. The .357 always gains(and therefor loses) more velocity per inch than the 10mm due to using slower burning powders. This is why a 10mm from a 18" carbine doesn't gain 400+ fps like the .357 does.
what do wee need a .357 180 gr. HC @ 1250 for?
I don't know...why not a 180 @1400 from a 5" revolver? For that matter, you can get a 180gr going 1300fps from a 3" revolver.

I'll take the one that exits and lands two feet behind the attacker over one that lands 200 ft. behind it.
Wait, so you would prefer it to be LESS powerful? Why?
S&W revolver in SA
Huh?

You know, the reason the debate between these two calibers can go on so long is that there is no clear winner. They each have slightly different advantages, but the overall performance level is so close that everything else pretty much cancels out.

Seven For Sure
September 28, 2010, 11:50 AM
I've chronod' Speer Lawman 155 from a Sub 2K at just over 1,500 average. That's 300 more than Speer claims from a 4". 10mm would get more than that, I'm sure there are #'s out there from a Mec Tec but I'm not going out of my way. 357mag uses slower burning powders? That's quite a broad statement considering most 357mag is watered down these days and used in barrels no longer than 6" with 3-4 being average. That's if you don't count all the J frames out there which make up the true majority of guns carried in the caliber. The caliber was designed around a 7.5" barrel, the 10mm was designed around a 4.5" barrel.

A 200 gr. .401 is less powerful than a 180 gr. .357, both at 1250? O.K. If you can't see why the 10mm barely exiting is better than the 357 going 200 feet after a through and through, I'll try to help. The farther the projectile travels after exit, the more energy it has and less energy it spent in the target. I'm not a light and fast guy and don't believe in hydro shock at velocities under 2,000 but energy dump is something I do believe in.

Seven For Sure
September 28, 2010, 11:54 AM
You know, the reason the debate between these two calibers can go on so long is that there is no clear winner. They each have slightly different advantages, but the overall performance level is so close that everything else pretty much cancels out.

This I agree with. They are very similar in terms of energy and even bullet weights. I believe the 10mm is better for SD because it's a bigger bullet (caliber) with less sectional density. If I was shooting antelope at 200 yards I'd probably choose a 158 gr. 357mag but I'd never shoot at any animal with a handgun at 200 yards so the point is moot.

Gryffydd
September 28, 2010, 01:18 PM
357mag uses slower burning powders? That's quite a broad statement considering most 357mag is watered down these days
The best performing loads for the .357 use slower burning powders than you typically see in the 10mm (H110/W296, Lil'Gun H4227 etc.) Obviously these aren't used in ALL .357 loads--just the highest performance ones. I think we can ignore the whole "typically watered down these days part" as it's true of both 10mm and .357 and is irrelevant when we're discussing the maximum capabilities of each.

The farther the projectile travels after exit, the more energy it has and less energy it spent in the target.
So you're telling me that a 200gr bullet at 1,900 fps that lands 200 feet behind what you shot is going to do less damage to the target than 200gr at 800fps that falls to the ground within feet of the target?* You honestly think that doubling the velocity of a bullet is going to make it less effective on the target when both provide complete penetration?

A 200 gr. .401 is less powerful than a 180 gr. .357, both at 1250?
Who said that? And 1250 is kinda slow for a 180 .357 load, as I posted earlier.

The farther the projectile travels after exit, the more energy it has and less energy it spent in the target. I'm not a light and fast guy and don't believe in hydro shock at velocities under 2,000 but energy dump is something I do believe in.
What exactly is it that this energy dump you're talking about is actually accomplishing?
It's clear that it's not providing penetration, as you described both rounds as exiting.
It's clear that it's not providing damage via hydrostatic shock, as you said you don't believe in it from rounds under 2,000 fps.
So what is it actually *doing*? What is its wounding mechanism?

I've chronod' Speer Lawman 155 from a Sub 2K at just over 1,500 average
That's an exception to the rule then, as the typical gain for .40 S&W is 200fps or less, compared to a typical gain of 400-600fps for the .357, as a trip to ballisticsbytheinch.com shows.
That's if you don't count all the J frames out there which make up the true majority of guns carried in the caliber.
Hey, if you want we can talk about the EAA Witness and how you can't shoot full-house 10mm in them :D
You can't really call the wide variety of guns the .357 is chambered in as one of its disadvantages--as long as full power ammo is easily available, which it is. That's like saying that the fact that the 10mm is only chambered in like 5 different guns is an advantage...

* Edit: Just to clarify, I'm using arbitrary velocities to illustrate the principle.

unreal45
September 28, 2010, 01:27 PM
My woods/trail gun is a G20. I shoot autos better than revolvers, the high capacity and light weight is just a plus. I don't even own a .357 anymore. Ballistically they are twins, which ain't a bad place to be.

NELSONs02
September 28, 2010, 01:35 PM
Good to see this thread sparked some interest. I haven't been on here in months.

Seven For Sure
September 29, 2010, 01:44 PM
No need to tell me what a POS the Witness is. My Witness Compact in "wonderfinish" is the single worst firearm purchase I have ever made. It broke (cracked frame, trigger mechanism swinging freely) the first time I ever shot it, in less than 100 rds. of 180 @1200, not even full power ammo. EAA are horrible people and I'm stuck with a pile of weak steel in the bottom of my safe.

I agree both are watered down considerably from what they're capable of and that's what we should be comparing. As far as the 200 @ 1900 being no more effective than a 200 @ 1200 if they both exit, I'm not saying that. I'm saying if you shoot the same bullet weight in both calibers or heavier in the larger one (the 200/180 scenario I made up), the smaller caliber will penetrate more as long as the SD is higher. If they both exit, more energy from the larger caliber bullet will be expended in the target.

I've got five 357mag revolvers and revolvers and semi's in 10mm. Nothing to lose or gain here, just expressing my opinion. The 10mm loaded hot with 155/165 modern day HP's is very similar to a load with one of the best track records for stopping humans ever: the 125 gr. 357 magnum HP. Similar velocity, similar SD, just larger and heavier. The 10mm is the modern day 357 magnum, just better in higher capacity guns. :neener:

Gryffydd
September 29, 2010, 02:04 PM
If they both exit, more energy from the larger caliber bullet will be expended in the target.
The question remains, what is that energy doing?
In reality good HPs, both .357 and .401 expand to within a few hundredths of an inch of eachother, so there's really no effective difference in permanent wound channel. We're not talking levels of penetration as we're only talking complete passthrough. If there's no hydrostatic shock, what's left?

stchman
September 29, 2010, 02:10 PM
According to the ballistics data on Wikipedia the 10mm has a touch more energy than a .357 Magnum. Not by much.

If you are wanting energy then get a .44 Magnum.

Gryffydd
September 29, 2010, 05:51 PM
According to the ballistics data on Wikipedia the 10mm has a touch more energy than a .357 Magnum
The highest energy load wikipedia lists for the 10mm is 750, while the .357's is 774.
Wikipedia isn't a very good source of ballistics data as they only list 5 or so loads for any given caliber, and from who knows where.

stchman
September 29, 2010, 06:05 PM
I am not going to search every known resource for ballistics data on every caliber. Wikipedia will be close enough for a comparison purpose.

Deaf Smith
September 29, 2010, 07:33 PM
My understanding is the very top loads of both .357 and 10mm are close in energy.

But you get a bit more area and weight with the 10mm and maybe a bit more penitration with the .357.

Example:

Buffalo Bore 158gr JHP.
2. 4 inch S&W L frame Mt. Gun

a. Item 19A/20-180gr. Hard cast LFN = 1375 fps
b. Item 19B/20-170gr JHC = 1411 fps
c. Item 19C/20-158gr. Jacketed Hollow Point = 1485 fps
d. Item 19D/20-125gr. Jacketed Hollow Point = 1603 fps

and 10mm

220 hard cast.
1. 1140 fps - Glock model 20 4.6 inch barrel
2. 1175 fps - Colt Delta Elite 5 inch barrel
3. 1201 fps - Para Ordinance 1911 with Nowlin 5 inch barrel

Both have advantages. The .357 can use anything from .38 Spl. on up. Bird shot, light wadcutters, etc... The 10mm usually holds more ammo.

Both would do fine in the field.

Deaf

If you enjoyed reading about "10mm vs. .357 Mag" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!