357 Magnum vs 45 ACP

[Rev.Hendryx]

7 pages... TLDR

but i'll chance to add my 2-cents...

.45 pros- more ammo, faster reloads, big ol' bullets.

.357 pros - better penetration, smaller guns

both have good reputations proven in actual shooting scenarios.

.45 cons- low penetration at a distance, large guns

.357 cons- lots of recoil, limited ammo, slow reloads

my take... i'd prefer a .45 for a house gun (lower chance of capping neighbors in my condo complex) and a .357 for a street gun (better penetration, and over longer distances). But then you have to figure... how well can you fire under stress? If you have doubts about your ability (realistically... take machismo out of the equation) you may want the larger capacity and faster reloads. Having to shoot the BG more than once is still better than not shooting them at all.

My carry weapon is an old Taurus model 66 in .357. I've fired a kimber pro-carry 5" in .45. The follow-up shots were much faster in the kimber, but that same gun failed to penetrate both sides of a plastic Folger's coffee can at about 20 yards.

Both are great guns. Your real question should be where you plan to use it and how well you can place a shot under stress.

 

[Demitrios]

A baseball bat has some pretty good stopping power. I would say it depends on what pistol you're more comfortable carrying. The first time I ever carried it was a full size 1911 chambered in 10mm. That will put some creatures down quick, fast and in a hurry. But I found myself really self-concious of not being able to conceal properly. If it's in your home then a shotgun will treat you much better than a pistol (just a personal opinion). Find something you naturally work well with, train, train, train and train some more with it and whatever you decide to use will treat you well if/when you god-forbid need to use it.

 

[lobo9er]

but that same gun failed to penetrate both sides of a plastic Folger's coffee can at about 20 yards.

am i missing somthing? was there anything in the can?

 

[Sheepdog1968]

I doubt that this would ever be settled. If I were stuck with a hand gun instead of a long arm, I want a semi-auto (faster reloads) and I want big diameter bullets so I choose a 45 ACP.

 

[JTQ]

am i missing somthing? was there anything in the can?

Sand? Concrete?

 

[jad0110]

Quote:
am i missing somthing? was there anything in the can?

Sand? Concrete?

Depleted uranium?

 

[lobo9er]

RIGHT! krptonite?

 

[sthomper]

with the expanding bullets does a (relatively) slow, heavy 45acp expanding wider create more "stopping" due to some type of surface area and mass combination that a zippy and light .357 (even though there is more energy) as it travels through skin and bone???


does the surface area contact somehow create more damage than more energy??

does the .357 mag still have more energy at 5 yards than at the muzzle exit??

 

[JoeSlomo]

Zombie thread....back from the dead.

RUN!

 

[sthomper]

zombie

you didnt have to reply at all.

meaning you probably have no life and thus are a zombie.

 

[sthomper]

maybe i will try to rephrase.

if a .45acp and a .357 mag hit the same spot on a human are the following observations likely to be true.

on the same spot a modern .45acp will hit slower but make a bigger entry wound and larger holes in organs??? (ie, skin, rib, heart)
on the same spot a .357 enters moving faster and makes a smaller entry wound and smaller holes in organs but be more likely pass through more organs and make an exit wound...? ??? (ie, skin, rib, heart, out the back skin)

opinion answer...have modern .45acp been brought to a level where most torso shots create exit wounds as well as .357mag???

 

[Manco]

if a .45acp and a .357 mag hit the same spot on a human are the following observations likely to be true.

on the same spot a modern .45acp will hit slower but make a bigger entry wound and larger holes in organs??? (ie, skin, rib, heart)
on the same spot a .357 enters moving faster and makes a smaller entry wound and smaller holes in organs but be more likely pass through more organs and make an exit wound...? ??? (ie, skin, rib, heart, out the back skin)

Much depends on the type of bullet that is used. .357 Magnum will make smaller holes, but some believe that the greater amount of energy it imparts to flesh will do more damage overall or create more of a "shock" effect (I don't think it's enough to make much of a difference, but that's just me). With hard, heavy bullets .357 Magnum has a greater potential to penetrate, which makes it better suited for killing animals larger than humans, but such a configuration would be a waste on humans or animals that are smaller. With soft, deformable bullets penetration may be less than one would expect due to rapid energy transfer, so .45 ACP should perform similarly (with a smaller temporary stretch cavity and slightly larger holes or permanent cavities).

opinion answer...have modern .45acp been brought to a level where most torso shots create exit wounds as well as .357mag???

Actually, modern bullets and loads are designed to expand more and penetrate just enough, usually staying inside the body. Most people actually desire this behavior, believing that overpenetration is to be avoided if possible, but I for one disagree and prefer a compromise between expansion and penetration (50% expansion with complete penetration and an exit wound in the common case). You'll have to decide how much penetration you think you'll need, and then select an appropriate load based on terminal ballistics test results (it's more about specific loads than caliber). If you want the best guarantee of fully penetrating human targets, then use "hard ball" (usually FMJ) rounds in either caliber.

 

[rscalzo]

grabs the popcorn and Dr. Pepper

After this, we can discus the best oil for a Harley.

 

[sthomper]

"With soft, deformable bullets penetration may be less than one would expect due to rapid energy transfer, so .45 ACP should perform similarly (with a smaller temporary stretch cavity and slightly larger holes or permanent cavities)."

this doesnt make much sense. if both bullets are the same material and type wouldnt the larger diamater bullet make a larger entry wound??

would the broader surface area of a .45acp at a slower speed and somewhat less penetration, i guess contact more human material...bodily damage, or would the smaller surface area but greater energy (and likely penetration) of the .357 make it travel farther and thus contact more human material (bodily damage)??

is the above the basic difference in the two bullets?? more surface area/less penetration? for the .45acp and for the .357 mag less surface area/more penetration so both end up displacing or contacting roughly the same amount of human material???

 

[NMGonzo]

You are shooting at 5 yards.

It's going through 2 legged animals no matter what.

 

[Manco]

"With soft, deformable bullets penetration may be less than one would expect due to rapid energy transfer, so .45 ACP should perform similarly (with a smaller temporary stretch cavity and slightly larger holes or permanent cavities)."

this doesnt make much sense. if both bullets are the same material and type wouldnt the larger diamater bullet make a larger entry wound??

I thought that was what I said (or implied). Using expanding bullets such as hollow-points in both calibers, a .45 ACP bullet would indeed make a larger entry wound, as well as a wider permanent cavity because the bullet has a wider diameter. My main point was that .357 Magnum's legendary penetration appears to drop quite a bit when using expanding bullets, down to where it's more or less comparable to that of .45 ACP (at least according to tests I've seen). The .357's extra energy goes into the temporary stretch cavity, which arguably causes more damage to flesh around the permanent cavity, but at these energy levels it is uncertain as to how useful this really is in terms of incapacitation. Some would argue that it makes .357 more effective, while others have more confidence in the larger permanent cavity of .45.

would the broader surface area of a .45acp at a slower speed and somewhat less penetration, i guess contact more human material...bodily damage, or would the smaller surface area but greater energy (and likely penetration) of the .357 make it travel farther and thus contact more human material (bodily damage)??

It depends on which loads you're comparing, as .45 JHPs can be made to overpenetrate (by limiting expansion and making it hot enough) and some .357 Magnum JHPs tend to stay inside the body. Personally, I prefer bullets to penetrate all the way through, from virtually any angle, in order to be able to reach any vital structures in their path; I'd hate to have a bullet stop just short when it was aimed at a spot that could have stopped a bad guy cold (e.g. the spinal column hiding behind all that skin, fat, muscle, and guts). It's not simply a matter of how much tissue is damaged, and to even do that you'd have to get test data for two specific loads that you're comparing. The performance of these calibers is close enough that the number of sweeping generalizations we can make is rather limited.

is the above the basic difference in the two bullets?? more surface area/less penetration? for the .45acp and for the .357 mag less surface area/more penetration so both end up displacing or contacting roughly the same amount of human material???

That's not necessarily true, although it might be if you're shooting grizzlies with hard-cast bullets, for instance. .357 Magnum definitely has greater energy and could penetrate a lot more if you wanted/needed it to, but this capability is generally wasted on human-sized targets, which is a key point to keep in mind. With the lightweight (usually 125 grains) JHPs recommended for defense against humans, .357 seems to dump its energy explosively into tissue, and as a result will not necessarily out-penetrate a .45 JHP (it won't if the latter goes all the way through). Therefore a .357 bullet will likely come into direct contact with a smaller volume of tissue than a .45 bullet, making for a smaller permanent cavity overall. Whether .357's larger temporary cavity (where much of its energy advantage went) compensates for this (and possibly more) is still controversial.

From a historical perspective, everybody seems to be impressed with the performance of .357 Magnum with regard to combat between humans, but even so I don't think that any solid conclusions have been reached as to exactly why it is supposedly a superior performer against humans. Maybe it's not really better, or maybe it is for reasons that we can't quite put a finger on. Fortunately those who are agonizing over which caliber to use for defense are given plenty of reasons to use another caliber, namely .357 Magnum's massive muzzle blast and plumes of fire shooting out the side from the cylinder gap. Recoil can also be an issue for many people, but I shoot .40 S&W in a polymer-framed pistol, so it doesn't bother me. .357 Magnum is fun to shoot, but I feel pretty good about using calibers such as .45 ACP and .40 S&W for defensive purposes (and smaller calibers can be nearly as effective, too, really).

 

[Ric]

Generally
45 is the standard in autos
357 is the standard in revolvers
I'm sure there are many exceptions.

 

[TonyT]

That's like choosing between blondes and redheads - a lot of personnall prefernce and shot plkacement is more important than weapon choice.

 

[Zanad]

hmmm, if the .357 is a redhead and the blo.de is the .45, I'll take the redhead.

To me, the .357 doesnt kick that much if you have the right gun; but thats just me.

 

[hemiram]

Day before yesterday, we shot some watermelons that had seen better days. A friend's wife brought home a dozen that were going to be dumpstered from the store she works in. We shot them with .45ACP, 9mm, .38 spl, .357, 44 Spl and Mag, and .45 LC. In the smaller calibers the .357 really did a number on them, blowing them up, nearly as well as the .44 Mag did. The .44 spl, 45 LC, and ACP did blow a nice hole in them, but the magnums really popped them. Didn't seem to matter all that much what the bullet type was. The 9mm seemed to be better than the .38 too.

The .45 seems like it would be the choice for a house gun.

 

[shockwave]

45 is the standard in autos
357 is the standard in revolvers

Good comment.

Also, I can put all 7 rounds of .357 in a very tight group at close range. I can't do that with .45. So for HD I just feel better with .357 because of accuracy under pressure. Shooting .45s isn't a problem, but the recoil of it isn't good for my aim. This really gets around to "shoot the largest caliber you can fire accurately."

 

[Rexster]

Ric: "Generally
45 is the standard in autos
357 is the standard in revolvers"

Yes! When I learned to shoot in the early 1980's, and started wearing a badge in 1984, the regional standard for LEOs was S&W .357 Magnum sixguns and Colt 1911 autopistols. Low-dedication personnel, the lowest common denominator, carried .38 Specials in their .357 sixguns. The serious pistoleros carried Magnums in their sixguns, or 1911s. Many of these serious pistoleros owned and used both. (Texas did not have a CHL system in place until the 1990's, therefore my mention of LEOs.)

As late as 2002, I carried both 1911s and .357 sixguns to work; 1911 in the duty rig, and GP100 cased next to me, in a Safepacker, on the driver's seat. (The term "seat gun" existed for while; haven't heard it in a while.) I kept a .357 sixgun that way until as late as 2007, though the duty autopistol had changed to .40 in 2002.

Other lawmen, mandated to carry sixguns in the duty rig, carried 1911s off-body, in a similar manner.

These lawmen knew that both cartridges had their place, and that some could do certain things better than the other.

So, why do folks keep taking about ".357 versus .45 ACP?" The correct answer is both, of course. Oh, sure, well before the internet existed, gun magazine writers, and folks writing letters to the editors of the magazines, would argue about this. I, and many other serious pisotoleros, would roll our eyes, or shake our heads, and just go right along using both the .357 Mag and .45 ACP.

I have recently thought about reviving the practice of bringing a big .357 sixgun to work with me, again. Some things just feel so right. FWIW, I have actually used a .357 to defend myself, on duty.

 

[Manco]

Day before yesterday, we shot some watermelons that had seen better days. A friend's wife brought home a dozen that were going to be dumpstered from the store she works in. We shot them with .45ACP, 9mm, .38 spl, .357, 44 Spl and Mag, and .45 LC. In the smaller calibers the .357 really did a number on them, blowing them up, nearly as well as the .44 Mag did. The .44 spl, 45 LC, and ACP did blow a nice hole in them, but the magnums really popped them.

That's the extra energy of the magnums at work, of course, and it can be seen in ballistics gelatin as well, but what effect it really has on flesh--particularly the more elastic types--is debatable. Obviously people, even small individuals, do not explode when they're hit by .357 Magnum or even .44 Magnum rounds. It takes a lot more kinetic energy, as in high-powered rifles, to make an indisputable difference in wounding humans.

Didn't seem to matter all that much what the bullet type was.

While this is usually true for watermelons, the bullet type can make a major difference when shooting plastic jugs filled with water, which shows the importance of considering the target medium when selecting a caliber to use.

The 9mm seemed to be better than the .38 too.

9mm Luger usually has much more energy than .38 Special.

The .45 seems like it would be the choice for a house gun.

It's certainly a good choice, in my opinion, although some smaller calibers may be nearly or just as good with some advantages of their own.

What's interesting is that .357 Magnum is so comparable with regard to reputation even though .45 Colt, which has been around for such a long time, is far more similar to .45 ACP in ballistics (in factory loads, it was slightly more powerful in the past and is slightly less powerful now). I guess this goes to show that reputation isn't always primarily based on performance parameters, but rather on "social" factors and happenstance in large part.

 

[Charles Davis]

Some random thoughts. You should carry the most powerful round you can shoot accurately. Some people have trouble with the flash, recoil and noise of a .357.Depending on the round, a .357 mag might be in the 600 ft/lbs energy range. Thats one reason why many police switched to the .40 in a semi auto. Less noise and recoil. while less powerful on paper then a .357, it scored 96 percent one shot stops on Evan marshall,s charts. As I recall, it produces approx 500 ft/lbs of energy. (A 9 MM depending on round selected is around 400 ft/lbs)
A footnote, the FBI sugests a minimum of 400 ft/lbs of energy for a self defense round.
If you carry a snubby in .357, alot of the energy is burned after the muzzle in flash and smoke. "Bufalo Bore" specialty ammunition has a .38 round for snub nose that delivers approx the same energy with less flash and recoil. Check their charts but they have a 158 grain round similar to the old FBI load that develops approx 1000 Ft/sec at the muzzle of a 2.75 lg barrel. That will expand the round reliably.
PS. Its critical to select a good defensive round to transfer the energy to an attacker. I carry silvertips in my .357 S & W medium frame and "buffalo bore" in my snubby.

 

[Ben86]

I think the .45 acp's size trumps the .357 magnum's velocity. I am also not fond of how loud the .357 mag is, I can't imagine how defining it is indoors. Probably like a flash/bang going off in front of your face.