9mm vs 357mag

Even if bullet weight and velocity are relatively equivalent, a bullet that is loaded into a revolver does not have to feed through magazine feed lips, then, if applicable, bash into and then climb a feed ramp, and perhaps bash into the top interior sidewall of the chamber, before the cartridge is seated into place. The Federal Hi-Shok 125-grain .357 JHC, that was in the chambers of my GP100, one fateful night in 1993, looks nothing like the 124-grain and 125-grain ammo that I now load into my 9mm Glocks.

The 180-grain ammo, that I load into .357 revolvers when four-legged opponents are part of the day’s threat profile, not only looks far different from any 9mm I have used, I do not believe that there are many, if any powder recipes for what little space would exist inside the case, if that long bullet could be loaded deep enough into the case for a correct OAL to ensure feeding, even if the blunt nose profile would feed.
 
The 180-grain ammo, that I load into .357 revolvers when four-legged opponents are part of the day’s threat profile, not only looks far different from any 9mm I have used, I do not believe that there are many, if any powder recipes for what little space would exist inside the case, if that long bullet could be loaded deep enough into the case for a correct OAL to ensure feeding, even if the blunt nose profile would feed.

How about a 185 grain bullet instead?

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2019/01/21/shot-2019-seismic-ammunition-high-mass-loads/
 

Neat stuff. The link above dates to January 2019, which is to say exactly 4 years ago. It's hard to find any information more recent than 2019, although there was a thread about here in 2020: https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/seismic-ammo.863791/

The most information I could find about it in short order is in this thread an International Ammunition Association forum: https://forum.cartridgecollectors.org/t/seismic-ammunition-ultra-heavy-blt-9mmp/31668

Apparently it takes something unusual to get that bullet into a 9mm case with the powder charge (per Ammo One in the above thread):

"The case they are using looks to be a "Shell Shock Case , Creedmoor used in their 9mm. ** “History of Shell Shock Case: From Shell Shock Technology’s web-site:** “Engineered for the future: 50% lighter and 2x stronger than brass. Outperforms nickel-plated brass on every level. Uniform wall thickness + proprietary assembly techniques = reliable and consistent velocity, 0.93 fps standard deviation. . . Ejects cool to touch. Made in the USA.” Other reviews from Police Products with Lindsey J. Bertomen: “Shell Shock Technology’s brass is a two-piece product. The cylindrical part, closest to the bullet, is a nickel alloy stainless steel. Since regular stainless steel really isn’t magnetic, they have added that property in the formula. The base is nickel-plated aircraft aluminum. They are joined together by a proprietary process."

Apparently the idea is an extra heavy bullet at a substantially lower velocity than standard loads. This sounds to me almost exactly like what did not work with the 200 grain loads in the 38 S&W and 38 Special "Super Police" loads, and even the early 147 grain 9mm Parabellum loads when used in pistols instead of carbines. But all of those were a long time ago, so maybe this thing is terrific. At least in something other than pistols.

Sorry for the thread drift, but I wanted to learn about this ammo and its remarkable cartridge case.
 
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. )
My understanding is that a lot of .357 is loaded light. The full power stuff is more powerful than 9mm.
 
Ok, I think I get it now: Ammunition designed to meet a common standard performs similarly, whether the box is marked 9mm or 357 Magnum. I am not sure what there is to discuss about that.

It seems to me that meeting that standard means pushing 9mm ammo really hard, so much so that it needs to be marked as "+P" or even "+P+", and that does not need to be done with with 357 Magnum. But that only matters if we are concerned about which guns can use +P or +P+ 9mm, and that is not the point under discussion. Per the OP: "Please let's leave capacity, ammo availability and cost, etc out of the discussion, and only focus on the performance and ballistic difference only."

In my long-winded post above, I misunderstood the OP's point, and was thinking in terms of the potential of each cartridge in general, not in a particular market segment. I apologize for wasting people's time as a result. I thought the OP was trying to say that 9mm and 357 Mag were now roughly equal.

PS - Some ammo company, maybe Norma, used to market a +P+ 38 Special load that was described as a "low-end 357 Magnum in a 38 Special case". (Not by the manufacturer, but by a writer somewhere. The phrase stuck in my mind.) If that ammo is still being made, we could get 38 Special into this discussion. And maybe 38 Super too. Then we could decide they are all pretty much the same. So would anything else be - if it was designed to meet this standard.
Buffalo Bore still markets their ‘heavy’ +p .38 special as .357 light, and for all intents and purposes it is. Same with the most powerful Underwood .38. They both can push 1200 fps out of a full sized revolver, with a 158 grain round.
 
I had an uncle who was a police officer in Detroit in the 1970s and he carried a .357 and did not feel undergunned per his opinion. He showed me some sort of special law enforcement only type of rounds and some AP rounds. I had read some data somewhere a few years ago that showed the 357 had the greatsest number of one shot stops. I have no idea where that source is.
 
The Miami shootout always comes up in these conversations, as it has in this one. It should be pointed out that most of the agents were armed with .357's. There were only two 9mm's present. I believe the 9mm was used as a scape goat to cover up for poor training and marksmanship. This is a reflection on the training provided at the time by the FBI as an agency, NOT the brave, duty-bound agents who did their best to bring in two very dangerous criminals.

The immediate knee jerk reaction to the "ineffective" 9mm was the 10mm, followed by other offerings such as the .40S&W and the .357 Sig. Notice the FBI and most police departments have circled right back around to the 9mm.

It is true a full load .357 is more powerful than any 9mm. It is also true that a dump truck is more powerful that a 1/2 ton pick-up. But I would not use a dump truck to move a couch when the pick-up is easier to drive and more than capable of doing the job.
 
Last edited:
This has certainly been interesting. While 9mm has become my favorite, ultimately it is no .357. The 9mm is surprisingly efficient though in the little 2" and 3" revolvers that are often chambered in .38, .357 or 9mm. For instance, the popular Federal 9mm 124 HST +P averages 1195 FPS in my S&W 940 with ~2" barrel, and 1290 FPS in my Ruger SP101 revolver with ~3" barrel. I've chronographed this ammo in these two revolvers more than once, and the results have been almost identical.

Can some of Buffalo Bore's.38+P and .357 beat this? I have little doubt...
 
I can shoot both 9mm and .357 Mag in my gun. The .357 Mag sure "feels" stronger than the 9mm. Maybe there are some nuclear 9mm loads I have missed?
 
The Miami shootout always comes up in these conversations, as it has in this one. It should be pointed out that most of the agents were armed with .357's. There were only two 9mm's present. I believe the 9mm was used as a scape goat to cover up for poor training and marksmanship. This is a reflection on the training provided at the time by the FBI as an agency, NOT the brave, duty-bound agents who did their best to bring in two very dangerous criminals.

The immediate knee jerk reaction to the "ineffective" 9mm was the 10mm, followed by other offerings such as the .40S&W and the .357 Sig. Notice the FBI and most police departments have circled right back around to the 9mm.

It is true a full load .357 is more powerful than any 9mm. It is also true that a dump truck is more powerful that a 1/2 ton pick-up. But I would not use a dump truck to move a couch when the pick-up is easier to drive and more than capable of doing the job.
I also always thought the response to this event was peculiar. The 9mm round that didn't penetrate quite enough to end the shootout was a hollow point. If they were carrying ball ammo for maximum penetration, the whole thing would have ended before it began. Nobody ever seems to bring this up.
 
I also always thought the response to this event was peculiar. The 9mm round that didn't penetrate quite enough to end the shootout was a hollow point. If they were carrying ball ammo for maximum penetration, the whole thing would have ended before it began. Nobody ever seems to bring this up.

I have always found it interesting that they concentrate on the one round that hit center mass rather than all the rounds that did not hit at all.
 
Gel is a great way to compare the performance of similar bullets or to see what will happened if one is attacked by a block of gelatin.....The problem with shooting gel is it presents a best-case scenario. In the case of the 9mm, if you're using a quality expanding bullet, if the bullet expands, and if the bullet doesn't encounter something like a rib bone, sternum, ulna, radius or humerus enroute to the CNS or vital organs.....More powerful and/or larger caliber cartridges provide for a much greater margin for error.
This is the crux arguments that the 9mm is "as good as" the others. All the design factors to insure penetration and adequate expansion must work for the 9 to be considered 'equal'.

To my way of thinking, the real draw of the 9mm is that it allows those wedded to light weight, small framed autos to carry an adequate defensive handgun. The advantages of 'ease of carry', however, are offset by decreased accuracy and add'l recoil which affects follow up shots. Shots which may be necessary if the bullet doesn't perform.

Larger calibers, in somewhat larger framed handguns with weight enough to mitigate the add'l recoil, IMHO, offer a larger margin for error...all this assuming the larger calibers are also allowed similarly modern design bullets. Facts which sometimes get overlooked in caliber effectiveness discussions.

But caliber/weapon choices are made by agencies whose leaders must address the needs of their officers; physical strength, hand size and the ability to qualify with the weapon are first priorities and the choice has swung towards the 9mm. Individual citizens however are not constrained in their choices; the gun and cartridge only has to fit their individual needs/capabilities. If we train adequately to handle the bigger calibers and guns, then that choice is valid. YMMv, Rod
 
Last edited:
Penetration tests in gelatin can be confusing as faster expanding bullets also have more resistance than slower bullets in tissue or gelatin causing them to stop at a comparable distance but doing more damage and expending more energy in the process. That is why velocity and energy numbers matter.
 
Here’s an ironic thought…
I’ve always heard modern 38 special ammo is downloaded so as not to blow up in some old guns.
I wonder if modern 9mm ammo in the U.S. is downloaded to not blow up newer guns (like ultralight micro 9s).
Maybe not, but it was just a thought that occurred to me while reading through this thread.o_O
 
Here’s an ironic thought…
I’ve always heard modern 38 special ammo is downloaded so as not to blow up in some old guns.
I wonder if modern 9mm ammo in the U.S. is downloaded to not blow up newer guns (like ultralight micro 9s).
Maybe not, but it was just a thought that occurred to me while reading through this thread.o_O
seems plausable. the little Beretta 32 ACP is recommended to only use factory ammo to a certain velocity. so - there is some precedent for the concept. not sure if any 9s have a recommneded limitation short of SAMMI spec. might make them for fun to shoot and practice with anyway.
 
Here’s an ironic thought…
I’ve always heard modern 38 special ammo is downloaded so as not to blow up in some old guns.
I wonder if modern 9mm ammo in the U.S. is downloaded to not blow up newer guns (like ultralight micro 9s).
Maybe not, but it was just a thought that occurred to me while reading through this thread.o_O

What we don't need is a conspiracy theorist spreading BS on the forum. Research it and get back to us.
 
Penetration tests in gelatin can be confusing as faster expanding bullets also have more resistance than slower bullets in tissue or gelatin causing them to stop at a comparable distance but doing more damage and expending more energy in the process. That is why velocity and energy numbers matter.
True but the penetration, ft lbs, and expansion diameter are very similar in the ballistics test respectively depending on the round.

I EDC a revolver with 357 self defense ammo, but I now don't feel like I'm gaining anything from carrying a heavy 357 revolver vs a lighter 9mm or even a revolver chambered in 9mm instead.

It seems like when it comes to common self defense ammo, they all are designed to meet the same metrics... Nothing more and nothing less.
 
Back
Top