Better manstopper 357 Mag or 45 ACP?

[BergaminoCAV]

depends on the shooter, either way the target is going down

 

[gbran]

Anecdotal story........

My ex wife shot her boyfriend 5 times in the torso/chest area at physical contact range. She was using my my 4 inch barelled revolver with 125 grain JHP's. She claims he was trying to take the gun away from her so she emptied thy gun in fear he'd get it and shoot her. She also claims that he didn't die instantly and stayed on his feet struggling with her past the last shot. He died fairly quickly, but it wasn't instant and none of the rounds knocked him down. He may have been on drugs.

He sixth shot hit my refridgerator and it did die instantly. She got off on self defense and I divorced her. This 15 years ago. We were already separated, but she still came by the house. This happened in my kitchen while I was at work.

 

[MCgunner]

My ex wife shot her boyfriend 5 times in the torso/chest area at physical contact range. She was using my my 4 inch barelled revolver with 125 grain JHP's. She claims he was trying to take the gun away from her so she emptied thy gun in fear he'd get it and shoot her. She also claims that he didn't die instantly and stayed on his feet struggling with her past the last shot. He died fairly quickly, but it wasn't instant and none of the rounds knocked him down. He may have been on drugs.

He sixth shot hit my refridgerator and it did die instantly. She got off on self defense and I divorced her. This 15 years ago. We were already separated, but she still came by the house. This happened in my kitchen while I was at work.

Uh, moral of story, don't p--- off your ex-wife????

 

[possum]

Shot placement always wins regardless of caliber.

That is the truth!

 

[shark40sw]

I wouldn't feel under powered with either round but would have to give my vote and the slight edge to the .357. Mostly because it gives me the widest choice in ammo.
It's also nice to see someone else has the same taste in women. :banghead:

 

[cslinger]

Most tests and actual results show the .357 to be the more effective stopper. It can also be loaded with bullets weights that make it a real crazy buttstomper round.

That being said I think .45ACPis a more practical round as it also has a long history as a proven stopper but is much easier to handle and is much easier on the ole' auditory system.

My two favorite calibers bar none though .45 and .357 so I have all my bases covered.

 

[jlh26oo]

Wow I'm surprised even 30% are choosing .45acp.

Did anyone read bob's post? lol

 

[Doggieman]

Correct answer: .45 ACP

Foot-pounds of energy don't kill, big holes in the right places kill. And the only thing that kills *right now* and stops someone dead in his tracks is luck. The 45 makes bigger holes. Today's .45 loads like the Golden Sabre and the Ranger/Talons are as likely to expand as anything in a 357. And to the folks who always write "placement counts," yes we KNOW, now answer the question.

Frontal area ((D/2)^2*pi):

.357 = 0.10 sq. inches
.45 = 0.16 sq. inches

Unexpanded, the hole a 45 makes is 1.6 times or 60% larger than the 357's. Holes baby, not energy dump, not nothin else, just holes man.

The best strategy in the case where someone is closing fast is to pop off a couple of rounds, run, and continue firing if need be. Time is on the side of the person with the fewest holes in him. To expect an instant stop is playing roulette.

 

[Cousin Mike]

I voted for the .357 Magnum.

Although, for clarity, I must admit that my .357 Magnum holds the same number of shots as my .45's - so I have 8 rounds on tap instead of 6.

I wouldn't feel inadequate with either round in a fight.

 

[jlh26oo]

Correct answer: .45 ACP

Foot-pounds of energy don't kill, big holes in the right places kill. And the only thing that kills *right now* and stops someone dead in his tracks is luck. The 45 makes bigger holes. Today's .45 loads like the Golden Sabre and the Ranger/Talons are as likely to expand as anything in a 357. And to the folks who always write "placement counts," yes we KNOW, now answer the question.

Frontal area ((D/2)^2*pi):

.357 = 0.10 sq. inches
.45 = 0.16 sq. inches

Unexpanded, the hole a 45 makes is 1.6 times or 60% larger than the 357's. Holes baby, not energy dump, not nothin else, just holes man.

Oh, I get it now. I don't know why I was thinking energy lol. Yeah, the proof is right there in the surface areas you computed.

So performance wise, a .357 mag, despite having more energy, is still no better than a .38spl, since each work out to be the same .10 sq inches surface area. Both of which are obviously FAR superior to say a .223 rifle, which is laughable in comparison to most handguns:

.357 = .10 sq. inches
.45 = .16 sq inches
.223 = .04 sq inches

For some reason I got confused and thought more energy meant you could accelerate heavier grain bullets to higher velocities... but I don't know where I was going with that lol. Thanks, doggieman.

 

[ugaarguy]

On bullet diameter and energy

I think we should all read thru at least the first page of this thread http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=1615465#post1615465. In particular, post #21 has quite a bit of insight including such gems as;

rifle bullets can do truly massive amounts of damage, since the force they exert radially outwards exceeds the tensile strength of tissue.

As a general rule, however, pistol bullets do not exert enough force to tear tissue to any degree; even ultra high-energy fragmenting rounds like a Glaser. http://www.firearmstactical.com/imag...m Glaser.jpg

In fact, most pistol rounds don't even exert enough force to crush tissue with their entire width; a bullet that expands to .75" may very well only make a hole that's .5" wide or smaller.

In other words, if X bullet makes 3" wide tears in gelatin, then X bullet shot into a pig's butt will stretch the muscle tissue out 3" for a fraction of a second, then the muscle will bounce back and the remaining hole will be, at most, the diameter of the bullet, and probably smaller.

Summation is that until you hit 44 Mag and up energy levels handgun rounds simply punch holes. The energy behind them allows for a combination of expansion and penetration. Now if someone wants to go to JE223's site, www.brassfetcher.com, and calculate overall wound size from his expanded bullet diameter and pentration depth and then give us a comparison of average wound size for 45 ACP and 357 mag we'll have a more quantitative means of comparison. I'm too tired to calculate it right now. Honestly there are more way more variables, but a larger wound will lead to more rapid blood loss and hence a more rapid stop. All that considered I'm confident that either 357 Mag or 45 ACP with premium expanding ammo will punch a plenty big enough hole to the job equally well for all practical purposes.

 

[jlh26oo]

Nope, sorry. Just holes lol. Find the area and you have your answer, no more complex than that.

 

[rustymaggot]

Doggieman,

"The best strategy in the case where someone is closing fast is to pop off a couple of rounds, run, and continue firing if need be. Time is on the side of the person with the fewest holes in him. To expect an instant stop is playing roulette."

awesome quote.

far as the debate, both get thru bodies well, its which gets thru bone the best that would sway my vote. i dont know the answer to that one. would the 45 deflect less than the 357?

 

[bpisler]

I doubt one is really better than the other when
using proper defensive ammo.That being said
i voted for the 357mag but i wouldn't be scared
to carry a 45 either.

 

[Doggieman]

HOLES baby

So performance wise, a .357 mag, despite having more energy, is still no better than a .38spl, since each work out to be the same .10 sq inches surface area. Both of which are obviously FAR superior to say a .223 rifle, which is laughable in comparison to most handguns:

.357 = .10 sq. inches
.45 = .16 sq inches
.223 = .04 sq inches

For some reason I got confused and thought more energy meant you could accelerate heavier grain bullets to higher velocities... but I don't know where I was going with that lol. Thanks, doggieman.

No dear, the reason the 357 is usually better than the .38 is because its extra energy allows it to make a bigger HOLE since it uses that energy to mushroom and penetrate whereas the 38 will tend to stop or not mushroom. The 45 generally has enough energy to penetrate fully, and modern bullets mushroom more than bullets of yore, generating larger HOLES.

The .223 is a beaut because it shatters within the body and creates a big ass HOLE (*SOMETIMES*).

So sure, energy is necessary or there won't be HOLES at all, but let's face it have you heard much about under-penetration with 45s in humans? Prolly not, 45s have enough energy to do the job, so the question ain't about energy but about how big a HOLE the thing is goingn to make in the guy.

It's still all about holes baby.

 

[MCgunner]

So, just forget the ol' 1000 ft lbs rule on deer for deer hunting and go with a .45 hardball for those 50 yard shots. Whatever, energy DOES matter. Shock DOES matter. Hunters know this.

I dare say a .357 from my Blackhawk pushing a 180 grain JHP to 1400 ft/second (regardless of frontal area) is a better deer stopper than ANY .45ACP on the market or that you could possibly handload to safe levels, period, no argument, just the truth and nothing but the truth. I have killed deer quite dead at 80 yards with a 158 grain SWC, not an expanding bullet, a hard cast SWC from a .357 revolver, the Blackhawk. That deer went 20 feet and collapsed, probably took all of a half second with a LUNG shot! The hole had 3" diameter of destroyed tissue around it through those lungs, I presume from the pressure wave, but it was destroyed never-the-less, whatever the energy transmitting vehicle. That sort of performance certainly couldn't be expected from any .45ACP load.

From experience in the great outdoors, there is no comparison in power of the two calibers, .357 wins. I don't hunt with the .45ACP and won't, not enough energy. If I hunt with a .45, it'll be the Colt. Now, you're steppin' up the energy ladder quite a bit, 1000 ft lbs at the muzzle from a 7" barrel.

Some of the theorists here need to get out and shoot something. You can read all you want and believe what you want, but my experiences say the .357 is a good deer caliber. I can't say that for the .45ACP past maybe 30 yards with the hottest load possible.

The only reason there are 17 votes here for the .45 ACP is there are lots of 1911 freaks here that just won't listen to anything, closed minds, Jeff Cooper is GOD.

 

[Rinspeed]

You can read all you want and believe what you want, but my experiences say the .357 is a good deer caliber. I can't say that for the .45ACP past maybe 30 yards with the hottest load possible.

And I would say it's a very poor deer caliber.

 

[MCgunner]

Quote:
You can read all you want and believe what you want, but my experiences say the .357 is a good deer caliber. I can't say that for the .45ACP past maybe 30 yards with the hottest load possible.




And I would say it's a very poor deer caliber.

Based on what? Have you ever killed deer with it? How many here have hunted with the .357 and killed deer? Maybe I need to start another pole thread. Nah, what's the point in that?

I've shot two deer with the .357, one at 60 and one at 80 yards and both died quickly. I'm thinking of hunting with it this season using my 180 grain load. I have shot a good half dozen deer with a contender in .30-30 Winchester. What's the frontal area of a .30 cal bullet? I know it's makiing about 1200 ft lbs at the muzzle and about 1000 ft lbs at 150 yards. That makes it a good deer caliber in my book. But, then, I don't know if anyone has ever killed a deer with the .30-30, not enough frontal area.

 

[Ohio Rifleman]

My dad, an ex-cop, told me the three most important things you need to remember in a defensive life-or-death shooting situation.

1. Bullet placement
2. Bullet placement
3. Bullet placement

According to him, it is possible to shoot an attacker with a .22 and drop him instantly, or to shoot the same attacker with a .44 mag, and not even slow him down. All in the placement.

 

[ugaarguy]

So, just forget the ol' 1000 ft lbs rule on deer for deer hunting and go with a .45 hardball for those 50 yard shots. Whatever, energy DOES matter. Shock DOES matter. Hunters know this.

I dare say a .357 from my Blackhawk pushing a 180 grain JHP to 1400 ft/second (regardless of frontal area) is a better deer stopper than ANY .45ACP on the market or that you could possibly handload to safe levels, period, no argument, just the truth and nothing but the truth. I have killed deer quite dead at 80 yards with a 158 grain SWC, not an expanding bullet, a hard cast SWC from a .357 revolver, the Blackhawk. That deer went 20 feet and collapsed, probably took all of a half second with a LUNG shot! The hole had 3" diameter of destroyed tissue around it through those lungs, I presume from the pressure wave, but it was destroyed never-the-less, whatever the energy transmitting vehicle. That sort of performance certainly couldn't be expected from any .45ACP load.

From experience in the great outdoors, there is no comparison in power of the two calibers, .357 wins. I don't hunt with the .45ACP and won't, not enough energy. If I hunt with a .45, it'll be the Colt. Now, you're steppin' up the energy ladder quite a bit, 1000 ft lbs at the muzzle from a 7" barrel.

Ok, a 185gr. Silvertip in 45 ACP produces 411 ft. lbs. muzzle energy, a 180 gr. Partition Gold in a 357 Mag produces 587 ft. lbs energy. Both figures are from www.winchester.com. Double Tap loads a 45 ACP 165gr XTP to 643 ft. lbs. They also load 357 Mag with: 200gr Hardcast @ 640 ft. lbs; 180gr hardcast @ 676 ft. lbs; 158gr Gold Dots @ 688 ft. lbs. So how does your 1000 ft. lbs. energy arguement apply in this case? Neither 45 ACP nor 357 Mag. produce anywhere close to 1k ft. lbs.

Yes energy does matter but only when you get to a high enough energy level that the bullet is exerting force radially along is path, not just linearly, thereby vastly increasing the size of the permanent wound cavity. Its commonly refeered to a hydrostatic shock, but it doesn't occur until a round reaches somewhere in the neighborhood of 1000 ft. lbs. of energy. 1000 ft. lbs. of energy out of a hangun starts in 44 Mag and hot 45 Colt territory. Hence hydrostatic shock doesn't apply to 45 ACP vs. 357 Mag arguement since neither produce the muzzle energy for the effects of it to produce permant wounding. At this point we're back how much wound volume do we have to produce blood loss.

I haven't voted on this because I believe the 45 ACP and 357 Mag are equally useful on humans. I'm not a closed minded Jeff Cooper wannabe either - I believe 9mm and 38 Special are just fine for self defense too. I apologize for bringing quantitative evidence instead of anecdote into the debate.

Edited to fix a few grammatical errors.

 

[MCgunner]

My 180 grain load uses the Hornady XTP loaded to 1400 fps produces 785 ft lbs from my 6.5" .357 mag. I won't load the .45 over 550 ft lbs for any of MY autos, too punishing on the guns. My 158 grain load, a load that has taken a couple of deer leaves the Blackhawk's muzzle at 1520 fps/769 ft lbs. I cannot get that sort of exterior ballistics from the .45 ACP. My .45 colt will make 1000 ft lbs from the 7 inch barrel of my Contender. Go back and re-read the 1000 ft lb reference. I was not talking about the .357.

These loads aren't on any Winchester site, they were recorded with my chronograph 15 feet from the muzzle of the gun, ten shot strings averaged. I believe to equal my hand loads, you can buy Buffalo Bore ammunition. That stuff is pretty hot.

The reference to the 1000 ft lb rule on deer is an old standby, 1000 ft lbs on target for a good deer caliber. I find that down here in Texas where the deer aren't exactly gigantic, that's not really true, but it might hold true in Canada or on Mulies or something. A good buck down here will dress out maybe 150. That's a big deer. A big doe is under 100 lbs. I just mentioned the old rule because seems to me I wouldn't have heard this all my life if energy didn't matter. I think pressure waves and energy does apply to handguns. I've seen it in the field first hand and I've read about it right here written by people a lot smarter than me. I never was a physics wannabe. I was a biology type and was danged happy to get a BS.

I apologize for bringing quantitative evidence instead of anecdote into the debate.

What quantitative evidence? All I read was yet another opinion and they're like....well, we all have one.

 

[OhioPaints]

I'd vote for 357 although they are both reasonably close

I think a .357 has the velocity to penetrate AND expand. .45s are less likely to expand. Therefore I suspect that a .357 will expand and make as big of a hole as a .45.

Ken

 

[ugaarguy]

What quantitative evidence?

Temporary wound cavity vs. permanent cavity. The volume of a wound can be measured or quantified, if you will, using standardized ballistic gel testing. While ballistic gel will never fully replicate a live mammal it is the best standard we have. By using a standard we can measure and compare on an equal ground. While the wound in gel may not exactly the wound in flesh, a round that wounds gel better will also wound flesh better. Until we get a better method I'll trust the gel tests.

My 180 grain load uses the Hornady XTP loaded to 1400 fps produces 785 ft lbs from my 6.5" .357 mag. I won't load the .45 over 550 ft lbs for any of MY autos, too punishing on the guns. My 158 grain load, a load that has taken a couple of deer leaves the Blackhawk's muzzle at 1520 fps/769 ft lbs. I cannot get that sort of exterior ballistics from the .45 ACP.

These loads aren't on any Winchester site, they were recorded with my chronograph 15 feet from the muzzle of the gun, ten shot strings averaged. I believe to equal my hand loads, you can buy Buffalo Bore ammunition. That stuff is pretty hot.

Well Clark Custom will ream out the 45 ACP chambers on S&W 625 to 460 Roland. That tells me that a 625 will take 45 ACP loads that are hotter than what an auto will take. How much hotter? I don't know. Maybe a good handloader, like I dunno, that McGunner guy, will find out for us. If we open the debate to handloads change the charecter of it. Now if I can beat this sinus headache I'll go to JE223's site and get us some wound volume calculations.

Hey look kids, we've got ourselves a THR caliber war! YAY!

 

[10-Ring]

I would feel equally protected w/ either...6 round of one or 9 of the other. Really, since my risk level is not that high, I don't seem myself in a running gun battle.

 

[SSN Vet]

kinda depends on which one you can hit the target with

I couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with my government .45 (not to mention all the stove pipes)

sold it off and used 2/3 of the proceeds to buy my med. frame .357

Now I can't miss!