I give up. If you can see how flawed this part is, I don't know what more I can say:
warriorsociologist -
No matter how much you whine about a "fair contest"--like comparing a box stock 686 to box stock Glock 20 is somehow "unfair--no matter how you try to split hairs, no matter how "yow but" it, or much you want to recompute barrel length, the figures remain:
Box stock Glock 20--DT 200-grain XTP--1250 fps/694 fpe
Box stock four-inch S&W 686--180-grain HCLFN--1375 fps/765 fpe
Are you actually trying to be serious? You seem to have been around here for too long to be a troll, so I can only assume you believe this stuff. Let me enlighten you about one very important point you have failed to consider: You are comparing both platforms
and calibers there...AT THE SAME TIME...and then drawing a conclusion about the caliber's performance while discounting any affects the different platforms may have imparted. This is a "discussion" (or it was) about ammunition (e.g., the performance of 10mm ammunition)...not 2 random firearms + ammunition. If you want to draw conclusions about a comparison between only 2 things, then you need to control for all other factors (as much as possible). Even the most basic high school logic courses teach this - that is if they still teach logic in HS...most likel only taught as a college class now. Anyway, if you are trying to say that a 4" 686 with 7 rounds (lets say it's a 686-plus) is better than a stock G20 for the first 7 shots by 70fps or so per shot, ok then...do you not see
how little that contributes to this argument? - it is also foolish to conveniently forget that a G20 would still have another 9 rds left [(15+1)-7 = 9 for those who are having trouble following along]. I guess based on your "logic" I could also say that ".308 is balistically superior to .30-06" based on "testing" them from a 24" and a 18" barreled rifles respectively, but that wouldn't make much sense now would it? Hmmm....how about this: consider trying to compare 2 car engines side-by-side by putting one in a much heavier car with different gearing and then trying to extrapolate which engine (only) is "better" based on the two cars' 1/4 mile speeds... Ring any bells? Make sense???
...but when you talk calibre, it's a wash.
This is exactly what this thread is about - a point you seem to have missed. You have yet to seperate caliber and platform from your analysis. I have tried to give you the benifit of the doubt by "playing nice" and not resorting to dragging down this thread by engaging you directly, but for the sake of unsuspecting others who might miss the obvious flaws in your argument, I am compelled to respond. You seem too blinded by your own need to believe your flawed logic that you don't seem willing to consider anything else. Of course this happens in politics all the time (capital L liberals hate anything GW says...just because it's coming out of his mouth, etc.), but I guess your homebrewed "cult of the .357" has you too firmly in it's grasp.
I am not going to try to reason with someone who's so determined to be unreasonable. When someday you get around to matching the platforms so you can actually control for them and thus compare only the calibers we are talking about, you might then "see the light of truth" and have something worth contributing. I can't say that I care if you do one way or the other, but if you insist on continuing to deliver your story with such conviction, it might be nice to post a link back here in the future so that unsuspecting readers can see what your opinions are actually based on.
Anyway, like I said, it's clearly no use having this one-sided "discussion" with you at this time...maybe after a few more years under your belt...we'll see. Until you have some comparible data to share or are willing to give up "preaching" and take up "thinking", I guess you can have & keep your fantasy alive. As long as the remaining people reading this thread have access to the information that is and should be clear to just about anyone, I am not going to waste any more of my time with you.