.357 Magnum and .44 Magnum versus 10mm Auto

Not open for further replies.
I don't think of the .357mag as a ''no man's land.'' I feel it is close enough to the 10mm. It's really question of...do you like revolvers or autos? Pick your weapon, get your cartridge.

I think you misunderstood my meaning. I agree 100% that the 357 and 10mm are essentially equals with the best loads in each gun. The 10mm slightly outperforms short barreled 357's and in long barrels the 357 slightly outperforms the 10mm. A Glock in 10mm essentially offeres 357 mag performance in a much smaller package, with 3X the ammo capacity. If I wanted a revolver, and I have both revolvers and auto's, I's just go straight to the 44.

By being in "no mans land" I'm referring to the difference between 357 and 44 mag. I have nothing against revolvers, but if I were buying a full size revolver I can't justify a 357. They are essentially the same size and weight. Close enough that no one will ever notice the difference between them as a carry gun.

The performance of 44 ammo covers a wide sprectrum from light 44 specials that have no more recoil than 38 specials, to hot 44 specials or light 44 magnums which outperform 357 mags in SD roles without the recoil or blast. If needed you still have to option of full power loads which take you to another level above either 10mm or 357.

I've owned many 357's over the years, but sold them all several years ago and settled on the Smith 629's as my revolver choices. While there is nothing wrong with a 357, I wouldn't go back.
I have a S&W 610 (10mm) w/ the 6" barrel. I shoot 200gr bullets at approx. 1350 fps, give or take. Looks to be around 800 FPE at the muzzle.

I don't know how this compares to a 6" 357, maybe someone can post up their numbers for comparison. I *suspect* a standard load here is more like 600 FPE at the muzzle.

I used to own a 6.5" S&W 629 (44 mag). It was definitely more powerful, more like 1100 FPE at the muzzle. Kicked a lot harder, too. (same frame, same length, ect..)

:eek: great googly moogly man where are you getting your load data from? I referenced this article http://www.gunblast.com/SW-610.htm and your getting 100fps more than what he got. At that point you might as well go with a .41 magnum. Why risk injury to yourself or damage such a fine revolver, I got it the 10mm is a great cartridge but there are limits.

With more and more folks magnumizing the 10mm I often wonder if it would be feasable for a manufacturer to resurect the ol' .401 Powermag. That way folks would have a true 10mm magnum, and I bet if it were cut to accept moon clips you could use .40 S&W, 10mm, and .401 ammo.
Ok, jmr40. I get you now. You're quite right, .44 is very versatile.
I have to disagree about the platforms being about the same size. I find the K or L-frames (for instance) to be more ''carry friendly'' and handy, than the N-frame (for instance).
That is only my opinion and preference, and in no way invalidates yours.
I've said it before but, if Ruger made a ''Tracker'' version of the GP100 (no porting!). In say .41/.44/.45? I'd be all over it, especially .41 or .44.
Until such a beast exists, .357mag and 10mm meet my requirements.
Energy roughly equal to 200gr at 1200 fps, more or less. With a hard cast bullet and reliability.
.41 & .44 would be better, though. I could do it with less pressure and without pushing the envelope.
Here is some interesting 10mm data with a 610, Contender and a couple of autos:


All the 10mm owners say the 610 loses big velocity and I believe it in my own testing versus my 6" barrel auto.

Also as to the Coonan .357 auto some say a 125gr Remington hits 1900 FPS plus out of a 5". In my 4.2" GP100 I got mid 1400's so again if true it shows a revolver loses a bunch. That Coonan would put out 1000 lbs of muzzle if the numbers are true. All that data would show a comparable .357 auto is indeed stronger than any 10mm:


Same would hold true if you are spitting .44's which aren't up pretty good in the loadings versus .357 and 10mm autos.
336A, in the 610 I can load pretty long which increases powder space & drops pressures. I assure my load has no pressure signs whatsoever in my gun, started low & worked it up. The N frame is pretty beefy..

I'm not being a speed freak about it, this load was simply more accurate for me than the slower loads were.
I'm still trying to get a Coonan owner to do some testing. Posted was the Remington 125gr data. Posted was the 10mm data and my .357 data out of the GP100 (search). Just need to get some .44 Magnum data with different loads but if someone has Chrony data out of a .44 with factory ammo post up.
intercooler... "...if you are spitting .44's which aren't up pretty good in the loadings..." Do you mean downloaded .44? I admit, .357 & 10 could rival a handicapped .44.

The 125gr Remington you mention doing 1900fps can't possibly be a factory load from Remington. No 125gr .357mag doing 1900fps, is a standard factory load, from a ''standard'' handgun (as in, not a carbine). I know SwampFox does something in that range. I doubt Coonan recommends that load for their gun. But, if you're going that route? Why not compare a .44 that's pushed to the edge?
I thought you were talking 180gr all around to keep it equal? It seems using a given caliber's nominal weight would be advisable.
Choose a manufacturer that makes a comparable grade of load in each caliber. Then compare calibers, platforms, barrel lengths, cylinder gap, etc...
It's a shame what MFG's have done to the ammos. If they had a standardized load across the board it would sort things out. It will be interesting to see how the .44 testing goes.
The problem is SAAMI. They have continuously downgraded revolver rounds and I do not know why. The .38 and .44 Spl are nothing but squib loads anymore and .357 has been downgraded. Can't say on the .44 mag though.
Creek did you read the links? Some of those Coonan owners said yup.. 1850+ out of factory Remington 125.
I'm still trying to get a Coonan owner to do some testing. Posted was the Remington 125gr data. Posted was the 10mm data and my .357 data out of the GP100 (search). Just need to get some .44 Magnum data with different loads but if someone has Chrony data out of a .44 with factory ammo post up.
Tests to me is an action word that exhibits what different bullet designs/construction can do against different kinds of mediums.

Bullets designed/constructed for magnum velocities typically have a strong advantage over bullets designed/constructed for 40 S&W fired at 10mm velocities.

Reading paper data isn't the same as "seeing" test results. :)
I agree with 2zulu1. Current 40 cal bullet offerings don't hold together well at full house 10mm velocities- it would be nice to see an XTP-FP or a JSP offering in the 180-200 gr range that would take full steam. That more than any other reason could convince me to switch back to 44 mag.
yup...I read 'em. Not everybody there believes it, either. I think ''Happy'' summed it up best, when he suggested gases being read by the chrono. I don't deny that the Coonan gets higher velocities than a revolver with the same length barrel. I don't even argue that 10mm is more ''powerful.'' The Coonan numbers could be right? Who knows?

Again, it's comparing .357 & 10 to .44mag. Without basically rigging the test, there's no comparison.

As far as velocity losses or gains between platforms, in a given caliber.
Controls are needed...the same round used in each type, for instance.
A verified proper use of test equipment. Not ''claims'' made.
If for example the velocity listed for the Coonan. Was compared to the velocity of the same round; over the same chrono, on the same day, from a 4"-6" revolver (in good working order). We could conclude, ''Those numbers seem consistent with known velocities for a revolver. So the Coonan numbers should be reliable.''
A person can find all kinds of exceptions and extreme variations, to argue any case.
Putting one tid-bit against another tid-bit establishes nothing but trivia.
I picked up a box of Federal 240gr JHP's tonight and have Underwood 180/240's as well. I will fire them across and see what I get in the morning. I can't find a bunch of .44 Chrony and have no idea what they may give.
How exactly does a .357 hold 27 grains of powder, when 27.5 grains of Vihtavuori N110 is all you cam put into a .44 mag case and still be able to cram a 180 grain bullet on top?
That load runs about 1850 from my 7.5" Redhawk. It's been years since I chronied it, so I can't pinpoint the last 10 fps.

.357, 10mm, and .44 mag are all great rounds.
The .44 mag is much more powerful than .357 and 10mm.
I sure wish Marlin would bring back the 9mm and .45 ACP Camp Carbines, and also offer them in 10mm. A 10mm Camp Carbine would be nice little beast of a carbine.
intercooler...I just want to say, publicly, I hope I don't offend you. I, sometimes, enjoy picking at things. Mainly just in the spirit of debate or maybe akin to devil's advocate. I hope I haven't gone to far. I've been known to misinterpret ancient greek text and social situations.
Jaymo...I wonder if he means water? You can use water to get a base line measurement of case capacity. There can be differences from brand to brand, within the same caliber.
I've never done it, seems as I've read of it, though.
Jaymo... I'd love a 10mm carbine. Without going the Mech-Tech route. Something light weight, synthetic/stainless and sleek with an adjustable stock. Peep sights and/or a red dot? The Ruger .44 carbine, in 10mm, would be great. Rotary mag or tube fed, I bet it would feed better.

Of course, what I really want is a 10mm Thompson.

I don't hand load and can only go by published data on case capacity totally empty. That's kind of why I thought the .357 would be stronger than any 10mm (if loaded up) because it holds more totally empty. Here is where I got that data:


.44 is 39 and .357 27

I don't get offended. Sometimes I don't explain what I am looking at or trying to figure out for myself right. What I have been working on is over the counter commercial stuff for the last couple of years since I got into this. I don't handload at all so these are what I look at, buy, test, etc... For me I probably never will since I get factory ammo cheaper than people are reloading plus I don't have the time or equipment. So every so often I will buy a box of X and see what it does. All I can say is WOW how it all varies! Add on top of that how the .357, .44 and 10mm have been downloaded and most none of it is true to original anymore.
My other look is revolver loss versus the auto's. A .44 or .357 without having really strong loading won't put out as much as many may think in a revolver versus say a Coonan .357, Desert Eagle .44 or 10mm auto.



Those are what I have so far. I will be adding a new one for the .44's I test this morning. Off now to see what a .44 gives!
- 10mm P10 HS1 H 180gr HS (Match 4.75") 1035, 1008, 1034, 1022. 1024.75 FPS/ 419.62 LBS. This shot like a little Kitten and coupled with the known reliability of the Hydra-Shok expansion is a great HD round!

- .44 Magnum Federal WMAE44A 240gr JHP (7.5" Redhawk) 1509, 1505, 1510, 1512, 1548. 1516.8 FPS/ 1224.18 LBS. Had some real pop!
- .44 Magnum Underwood Ammo 240gr FMJ (7.5" Redhawk) 1383, 1354, 1273, 1276, 1392, 1383. 1343 FPS/ 961.70 LBS. I do believe these were from the period where Kevin's powder supplier switched without notice.
- .44 Magnum Underwood Ammo 180gr XTP (7.5" Redhawk) 1700, 1674, 1682, 1670, 1735, 1681. 1680.82 FPS/ 1128.93 LBS. Real pop and do believe this is with corrected powder.

- .357 Magnum PD357HS2 H 130gr HS (GP100 4") 1311, 1320, 1410, 1329. 1342.5 FPS/ 520.14 LBS. Pretty tame in a GP100 and great HD round.
The 125gr Remington you mention doing 1900fps can't possibly be a factory load from Remington. No 125gr .357mag doing 1900fps, is a standard factory load, from a ''standard'' handgun (as in, not a carbine).

Yes, 125gr. was a factory load, produced for LE and the S&W model 28 Patrolman, IIRC.
Not open for further replies.