9mm vs 357mag

sgt127 said:

Current military training round. Impressive 1320 FPS and a flat point. View attachment 1127920

Click to expand...

Says 115gr on the box though. Not 124gr.

sgt127 said:

Current military training round. Impressive 1320 FPS and a flat point.

Click to expand...

Interesting! I wonder if that small of a flat point makes a significant difference compared to the sharp FMJ standard.

21H40 said:

Interesting! I wonder if that small of a flat point makes a significant difference compared to the sharp FMJ standard.

Click to expand...

I'm sure it does. More wounding. Additional velocity is also good with a flat meplat.

21H40 said:

Interesting! I wonder if that small of a flat point makes a significant difference compared to the sharp FMJ standard.

Click to expand...

Probably helps the bullet track straight through whatever it hits rather than yaw that a typical round nose will show.

I thought enough of it to buy 500 rounds. It’s hot ammo.

If I were anywhere over penetration wasn’t a major concern, I’d carry it.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog...ial-purpose-9mm-hollow-point-ammo-tested/amp/

Interestingly, the military hollow point is 147 grain.

40years, and we’re still doing this, eh? Who really cares any more?

Here’s why I don’t: I shot my first handgun deer with a .357mag in the winter of 1991-‘92, and hunted with that borrowed M27 for a handful of years thereafter. I honestly never grew fond of the round, and when I could afford my own hunting revolver, I bought a 44mag in 1998. A few years later, Kansas started playing a mix and match game for a few years with deer hunting laws for legal cartridges in rifles and handguns - we had previously had a case length limit and caliber limitation for handguns, but only a caliber limit for rifles, which meant 9mm carbines were legal, then they did away with the case length standard, which then made 9mm pistols legal for hunting - so between 2000 and 2005, I ended up taking several deer at pertinent distances with a High Point Carbine and a Glock 19 (even a Walther PPK/S in 380acp), largely just to prove a point to some naysayers in this type of discussion. Not because I’m any kind of fan of 9mm Para, but because I recognized very young that this particular comparative debate is fruitless, and largely is predicated on card stacking tricks like +P ammo or barrel lengths or this bullet tech or factory loads vs. handloads or whatever other BS we dribble around, but after killing game myself for comparison, it became very clear the difference in kinetic energy on the box really doesn’t reflect a tangible difference in killing performance in the field. No, when pressures are similar, there’s no replacement for displacement - but “enough is enough,” and we have a LOT of collective evidence that either are effective manstoppers.

So after having the experiences I did with putting bullets through flesh and bone, I don’t think twice about carrying either a 9mm or 357mag for their own merits, and readily acknowledge I carry 9mm far more often than 357 because and wholly because I have more ammo, faster reloads, better triggers, and flatter profiles, longer sight radii, and lesser weight, all with the same potential efficacy and potential failure on the business end.

Styx said:

I was just comparing Lucky Gunner's ballistic testing results, and I'm not seeing a real difference in numbers. The general consensus by most would be that 357mag is more powerful than 9mm, but looking at the numbers on paper, the difference seem negotiable. I carry a revolver loaded with 125gr 357, but this data has me not seeing the benefits.

9mm Luger (9x19) Ballistic Test Results

.357 Magnum Ballistic Test Results

(Please let's leave capacity, ammo availability and cost, etc out of the discussion, and only focus on the performance and ballistic difference only. )

Click to expand...

What numbers are you looking at? Velocity? Energy? Expansion diameter and penetration depth?

The prevailing theory of the present day on handgun terminal ballistics is that velocity, bullet mass, energy, momentum and similar numbers serve only to achieve penetration and expansion in gel. This is the standard that law enforcement in the US has adopted via the FBI and the consumers in the US have a long tradition of buying defensive handgun ammo similar to their law enforcement agencies. Because of this, the goal is for all the ammo to have the same result with respect to penetration and expansion in gel. In this respect, 357 cannot do any more than another cartridge that achieves the same goal expansion of 1.5X and the same goal penetration of 12-18 inches.

The 357 is capable of firing significantly heavier bullets at much higher velocities than 9x19mm, but this capability is regarded as only adding recoil while not resulting in a meaningful difference in the terminal effect. If we agree with this prevailing theory of terminal ballistics, we wouldn't pursue the greater external ballistics the 357 is capable of, but we would seek to load just enough to meet the goal penetration and expansion while keeping recoil to the minimum level needed and to do it with the barrel length that we desire -- 357 is commonly shot in 1.875" barrels and in 6" barrels, neither of which are at all common for 9x19.

The 125 grain bullet from a 357 can be problematic. If it is loaded to exit the particular gun with the particular barrel length at a velocity that is known to produce a result with the particular bullet used that expands and penetrates according to the gel standard, then it can be regarded as dependable under the prevailing standard. As such, it probably won't be much different than a 9x19 that similarly meets the standard. On the other hand, if the 357 is used to drive the bullet to a high velocity, the hollowpoint can overexpand and penetrate less. The 125 grain is prone to doing this. Another way a 125 grain 357 can fail to perform as desired is when the cartridge is designed to handle the velocity of a longer barrel, the bullet is made tough enough so that it doesn't splatter open at high velocity impact and under-penetrate, but then it is shot out of a little snubby barrel and fails to expand at all and then over-penetrates.

Because of the above risks with 125 grain 357 loads, there may be more security in using heavier bullets with 357. The additional sectional density and momentum will better assure that penetration to standard depth is achieved even after good expansion. This is why the 135 grain hollowpoint bullets were developed. Of course, the 158 grain also works and has been around since the days when cast lead prevailed. There are also popular monos like the 140 grain Barnes that Barnes (was Remington) itself loads, Federal loads, and Buffalo Bore as well.

When my nephew challenges me with his 9mm, I pull out my 6" revolver. Here's an example. The second photo is a .38 Special, loaded with a 135 GD, using my 6" revolver and shot into 2 jugs of water. I haven't tested my 357-158gr GD load yet, which was used in the first photo.

It's accurate to recognize there is one standard for defensive handgun ammo that factories are designing and loading every cartridge for. They're not loading 9, 40, 45 to meet different standards. There is a single standard and that makes the ammo loaded for it much more similar to other ammo also loaded for it.

Part of the reasoning behind the single standard is the rationale that none of the common handgun cartridges is capable of any meaningfully distinctive performance anyway. Yes, 45 can shoot heavier projectiles, and 357 can shoot projectiles at higher velocities, but how big are these differences in real terms? Is 25 fps faster really meaningful for any purpose? Is 250 fps faster meaningful? How much faster or heavier do we need it to be before it's significant in terms of the effect we want to have?

I can tell you that according to the guys who lead the law-enforcement ammo division for Vista Outdoors (Federal, Speer, CCI, Remington, etc.), the difference is the threshold identified by Buford Boone whose work followed that of Martin Fackler and served to predominantly influence the FBI's standards: 2200 fps. That's the velocity threshold that was identified below which the size of the temporary wound cavity is insuffiicient to effect permanent wounding in the tissues they were concerned with. Mind you I'm not stating their findings as fact, but I am stating the fact of their findings. Whether we agree or believe in this or not is separate from the fact that they believed it and that greatly influenced their perception of how handgun terminal ballistics works.

45 ACP is "bigger" than 9x19mm, but 444 Marlin is bigger still. The difference between 45 and 9 is relatively small and regarded by some as meaningless. The difference between 9x19 and 444 Marlin begins to take on some meaning. It's significant. Since carrying 444 handguns with the rifle-length barrels that would make it effective is not something relevant to most anyone's consideration, what becomes more significant is making sure our 45 ACP doesn't over-expand and fail to penetrate, and making sure our 9 doesn't fail to expand but opens at the velocities that it will hit with and then making sure the expanded bullet's sectional density is maintained at a level that it will penetrate to sufficient depth. Getting it going another 100 or 200 fps isn't really meaningful except that it could actually mess with the performance of the bullet if the bullet isn't optimized for that additional velocity.

When I think about the difference between 9x19 and 357, I think of 357 as 9x33R. The practical difference is the case length and the volume.

SAAMI spec for both is 35,000 psi, and both are capable of more pressure. 9+P is 38,500 psi and CIP spec for 357 is 43,511 psi. The most practical limits on pressure is at whatever level the pistol stops functioning reliably and at whatever pressure the brass starts to stick too hard in the chambers of the revolver. They are both likely to start exhibiting problems over 45,000 psi.

Because of the difference in case volume, how we get to the Maximum Average Pressure (MAP) in each case varies. The limited capacity of the 9x19 case prohibits the use of bulkier propellants and longer bullets. With limited propellant volume, we can't use heavier charges of progressive powders, but we're limited to lower volume charges of typically faster-burning powders with the limited space given to energy-bearing components rather than deterrents. We're limited to shorter bullets, typically no more than 147 grains.

With the generous capacity of the 9x33R case, we have ample capacity for progressive ball powders that are coated with a thick layer of deterrent that keeps the burn rate low until that coating is burned through and the more energy-dense core is exposed. This initial slow burn rate allows a more massive charge to be loaded without exceeding the MAP limit. The bullet moves down the bore giving more room for the increasing rate of propellant gas expansion as the core burns. The case capacity also allows 158, 180, 200 grain and larger bullets to be loaded. So the 9x33R certainly has some capabilities than 9x19 does not have, at the expense of not fitting neatly into a pistol grip. Are these capabilities useful for defensive use? That may be determined by the specifics of the application, but it's fair to say that it's not likely that we will get the best result simply by maximizing all the capabilities of the cartridge -- loading the heaviest charge of H110 behind a 210 grain hard cast bullet or something similarly maxed-out.

Consider what happens if we put 4.4 grains of Titegroup under a 124 grain .355" Gold Dot in a 9x19 case, and we put the same 4.4 grains of Titegroup under a 125 grain .357" Gold Dot in a 9x33R case and the bullets are seated to an appropriate depth for each case.

In the 9x19 chamber, pressure will rapidly rise to something like 34,000 psi by the time the bullet has moved less than a quarter of an inch, and then pressure will taper off as the bullet moves down the bore. The bullet will exit a 4" barrel at about 1050 fps with about 4000 psi of pressure behind it.

In the 9x33R chamber, the pressure will take a little longer to rise because there is more space for the gas to expand into. There isn't enough powder to produce more than about 15,000 psi in the given space. The pressure won't reach that peak until the bullet has moved about half an inch. The bullet will continue down the bore relieving pressure as it makes space behind it, and it will exit a 4" barrel at about 850 psi with about the same 4000 psi pressure behind it. Theoretically, the pressure at muzzle exit would be a little higher because more of the powder charge was burning later on the timeline, but in reality, we've probably lost some through the barrel-to-cylinder gap. I realize also that 4" barrels mean different things on pistols and revolvers, but it suffices.

What we see is that the bigger "air-gap" in the 9x33R versus the 9x19 results in the same powder behaving a lot like a slower burning powder. Because we're not even getting close to the same maximum average pressure, we can increase the mass of the powder charge even though we are using (practically) the same bullet, and the same powder without more than the same pressure.

If we load 7.2 grains of Titegroup in the 9x33R, we'll reach a similar pressure as we did with the same bullet in the 9x19 case with only 4.4 grains of Titegroup. How can it be that so much more of the same powder doesn't produce more pressure? Where does all that additional expanding gas go? It goes further into the future on the burn timeline. Although the peak pressure is reached after a little more than a quarter of an inch of bullet travel, there is a lot more powder to continue burning after the bullet moves farther down the bore and the pressure is maintained at a higher level throughout the bullet's trip down the bore. It exits with almost 7500 psi still behind it, and it's going over 1150 fps. So we used quite a bit more powder (proportionally speaking) and we got a lot more muzzle pop! And the result is about 100 fps more. Enough difference to make a difference?

Clearly, we could not load the 7.2 grains in the 9x19 case. With Titegroup, it might physically fit, but we would see almost 90,000 psi peak pressure and most guns would be destroyed. What could we do with the 9x33R if we were to use a more progressive powder? With Universal, the 9x19 would gain 100 fps and exit with a muzzle pressure about 5000 psi. In 9x33R, with Universal we would also gain another 100 fps and the muzzle pressure would be over 9000 psi.

So we can see that with a powder like Universal, we could load 9x19 to match the velocity of 9x33R loaded with Titegroup. The additional case capacity of 9x33R causes the load to behave similar in many respects to a load in a shorter case with a slower powder.

With H110, we can no longer fit enough of it into the 9x19 case with a bullet to reach a pressure that will cause it to burn. It will result in a hang fire, possibly a squib load and almost certainly malfunction of the pistol. If we put enough H110 into the 9x33R to reach a similar pressure to the loads described above, we will probably see the bullet exit at over 1400 fps with almost 15000 psi of muzzle pressure. This will generate the boom that 357 Magnum is associated with and some more recoil than what is desirable for self-defense in a relatively light 4" K-frame. The 357 can no doubt be pushed farther. I did not attempt to "max it out" in my example because the usefulness of this in personal protection is questionable.

I will close this post with the thought that 357 Magnum can be loaded to perform to meet the presently prevailing standard with the little 1.875" and 2" barrels that are common of guns chambered for this round. 9x19mm can meet the standard with the 4.25" barrel used in the tests referenced in the OP, but if it were to be used with a 2" barrel, the higher volume of the slower powders that can be loaded in 357 cannot be used in the 9x19 and it is not likely to achieve the minimum required performance. 9x19 cannot be adapted to as short of barrels as 357, neither will it benefit as dramatically with longer barrels.

9mm vs 357 Mag - big difference in capacity.
357 Mag is going to be 6 shots maximum (in most examples) before reload and 6 rounds is comparatively capacity deficient.
9mm even with a small Sig 365 we have 11 rounds, in a compact Glock 19 we have 16 rounds (no mag limit)

If we want 357 mag ballistics and not be capacity deficient with only 6 rounds then 357 Sig is the answer:
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/357-sig-gel-test/
357 Sig Winchester 125 PDX defender @ 1,423 fps = 562# KE - that is on par with full power 357 Mag

If youre using the gun for a defensive weapon, I think the more important aspect here, is whichever you shoot the best with in a realistic manner (quickly and repetitively) over what little difference in power you might gain from one over the other. The extra power does you no good if you cant handle and shoot the gun well.

I have a number of different guns in both calibers, and as much as I like the 357's, they wouldnt be, and arent, my choice for that purpose. The 9mm is just the better choice there, and for a number of reasons

Now for a hunting round, the 357 would be the choice hands down.

For SD at 3 feet neither meets the discussed 2200 fps so essentially the same. For situations where barriers exist win 357. For hunting I'd want better sectional density of the heavier 357. For urban combat 9mm. It's funny that 10mm was the benchmark for competing with 357 and now the 9mm is just as good. Pretty soon its going to be the 25acp is just as good. If the name has magnum rifle or pistol short barrels are defeating your perceived gains.

it is not surprising that factory SD rounds are designed to meet some theoretical maximum performance. so, sure - in real world effectiveness are they similar; probably.

It's amazing how long this thread has gone.

Given two cartridges of the same (or almost the same) caliber but different case capacities, there are only two ways the smaller of the two (9mm) can be as powerful as the larger (.357); One either increases the chamber pressure of the smaller cartridge in order to increase the velocity of it's bullets, or decreases the chamber pressure of the larger in order to decrease the velocity of it's bullets. It really is that simple and there really is nothing magic about the 9mm, no pixie dust, no voodoo, no special powders, etc.

35W

trackskippy said:

If youre using the gun for a defensive weapon, I think the more important aspect here, is whichever you shoot the best with in a realistic manner (quickly and repetitively) over what little difference in power you might gain from one over the other. The extra power does you no good if you cant handle and shoot the gun well.

I have a number of different guns in both calibers, and as much as I like the 357's, they wouldnt be, and arent, my choice for that purpose. The 9mm is just the better choice there, and for a number of reasons

Now for a hunting round, the 357 would be the choice hands down.

Click to expand...

I agree that maxing out the power of the 357 is not likely to result in the most controllable gun and that bodes poorly for use in self-defense. However, the recoil characteristics of a cartridge are never independent of the gun. We've seen how the 357 can match or best the smaller 9x19's ballistics and it can do it from a variety of barrel lengths. If we start with a heavy steel gun with a smooth trigger and without a reciprocating slide and then we load the cartridge only to what's necessary to achieve the gel performance standard, it will compare very favorably in handling and shootability to a lightweight polymer gun whose cartridge must be nearly maxed-out and the barrel length critical to avoid failing our performance standard. The 357 can achieve the standard with leisure and the gun can do it as pleasantly as any other and more so than any polymer 9.

AJC1 said:

For SD at 3 feet neither meets the discussed 2200 fps so essentially the same.

Click to expand...

Ah that old chestnut. The magical threshold above which something or other happens and living creatures internally explode and fall down.

westernrover said:

I agree that maxing out the power of the 357 is not likely to result in the most controllable gun and that bodes poorly for use in self-defense. However, the recoil characteristics of a cartridge are never independent of the gun. We've seen how the 357 can match or best the smaller 9x19's ballistics and it can do it from a variety of barrel lengths. If we start with a heavy steel gun with a smooth trigger and without a reciprocating slide and then we load the cartridge only to what's necessary to achieve the gel performance standard, it will compare very favorably in handling and shootability to a lightweight polymer gun whose cartridge must be nearly maxed-out and the barrel length critical to avoid failing our performance standard. The 357 can achieve the standard with leisure and the gun can do it as pleasantly as any other and more so than any polymer 9.

Click to expand...

If youre comparing "sorta apples to apples", say a 2" J or K frame 357 vs a Glock 26, both loaded with a common SD load for the calibers, I can pretty much guarantee you, the 26 will be a lot easier to shoot well with for most people, especially for someone who doesn't keep up with things in regular practice.

And its not so much the power of the rounds thats important here, I really dont think youre going to see a whole lot of difference between the two in performance, but the shootabilitly of one over the other, makes it a lot easier to put the rounds where they need to go and to continue to do so, repetitively as necessary.

As I said earlier, I shoot a number of these same guns on pretty much a weekly basis, and the level of difficulty and the results of a quick 3-4 round burst on target at 5 yards from a Glock 26 compared to a 2.5" Model 19 or 3" Model 65, are noticeably different.

I went from carrying 45acp for a couple of decades, over to 357SIG when it showed up, at first because it was supposed to replicate the 125 grain 357mags and offer what was supposed to be the high bar standard at the time, and then after spending some time with it, and realizing I could get basically the same performance from 9mm (9mm+P+ and the standard 357SIG load at the time, were basically the same thing. Both 40000psi loads), and not have the wear and tear on some guns, and have more versatility there, I went to 9mm, and have stayed with it since.

And for comparison here in shootability, the 125 grain 357SIG shot from a P226 or Glock 31, were easier to shoot than the 125 grain 357mag from my 4" Model 19. The only noticeable difference to me between my Glock 31 and my Glock 17 shooting +P+ 9mm, was the bark of the 357SIG. If someone handed you a loaded gun and you didnt know what it was, other than that bark, you wouldnt know what it was.

I carried a couple of 357mag revolvers early on but quickly switched over to and stayed with the 1911 in 45acp, and part of that was for the same reasons I think the 9mm makes more sense than the 357mag. The guns themselves are more the thing than the rounds. The autos are just easier to shoot well with (beyond basic type target shooting) and generally easier to carry. Both, or in this case, all three rounds, will easily do the job, as long as you hit the right things, and if you dont, all will still require you to keep shooting until the desired result is obtained, or you run the gun dry.

All the paper number do, is let someone with an argument based on the numbers. But those numbers usually really dont mean a whole lot in real world performance, especially if the shooters performance is reduced because of it.

Not comparing apples to apples. More like 6" L-frame vs. Glock 19, but I agree with your conclusion. The Glock 19 can certainly be loaded to meet the present standard for performance. If the L-frame is similarly loaded to meet the performance standard and not to exceed it excessively, it will be a pussy cat by comparison. Even if we use a Tungsten-infused X-series P320 or tungsten guide rods and flashlight modules on the rail of another polymer pistol, or a metal 92FS, the recoil will be tamed but we will still have a reciprocating slide. While this buffers recoil impulse to a certain degree, once the recoil velocity is tamed, the slide reciprocation itself still upsets the pistol. The way people perform with these guns in IDPA or USPSA demonstrate that neither is a serious handicap when good technique is used.

Styx said:

I was just comparing Lucky Gunner's ballistic testing results...

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, Lucky Gunner used Clear Ballistics gelatin.

Terminal ballistics test results depicted in Clear Ballistics gelatin have shown to be erratic and unreliable.

A study of Clear Ballistics gelatin, published on the Hornady Law Enforcement website, proves how inaccurate it is:
For more info, see: "Ballistic gelatin comparisons: Part I. Is clear, synthetic gelatin an acceptable substitute for FBI-standard, 10% calibrated gelatin?"

35 Whelen said:

It's amazing how long this thread has gone.

Given two cartridges of the same (or almost the same) caliber but different case capacities, there are only two ways the smaller of the two (9mm) can be as powerful as the larger (.357); One either increases the chamber pressure of the smaller cartridge in order to increase the velocity of it's bullets, or decreases the chamber pressure of the larger in order to decrease the velocity of it's bullets. It really is that simple and there really is nothing magic about the 9mm, no pixie dust, no voodoo, no special powders, etc.

35W

Click to expand...

right, and I'm a .357 fan - but, if factory SD loadings are designed for expansion and some defined penetration, getting that projectile moving faster isn't necessarily better I think is what the OP is getting at.

Given close similarities, SHOT PLACEMENT is the only signifiant topic for discusssion.

Even .32 ACP ball placed here will take the fight right out of them.

Then you have rifle cartridges that do amazing things - even to extremities - at close range. Think about Fake-EMT Bicep-Boy meets M-193 in Kenosha. But we are talking about handgun rounds.