10mm vs. .357 Mag

[amd6547]

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]

Choice of barrel-length surely does "change the capabilities of the cartridge,"

So, because somewhere somebody has made a .357 Magnum with a 1" barrel, my 5" barreled .357 has magically lost velocity?

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[harmon rabb]

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]

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!

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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
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]

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]

Good to see this thread sparked some interest. I haven't been on here in months.

 

[Seven For Sure]

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.

 

[Gryffydd]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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