9mm vs 357mag

[Styx]

Since the thread is about 9mm versus 357mag lets ask Paul Harrell's take.

Yes, I watched that video. My main point is that yes, we can make direct comparison between two calibers for the same ammo manufacturer that will show that 357 is better; however, Paul could have also cherrypicked out different 9mm offering that may have performed just as good or better than the 357 rounds he used in the video...

 

[WrongHanded]

I've heard countless cases by all in the medical industry that the "tissue spray and the stretch" cavity is relatively small in all common handgun rounds and is only significant with rifle velocities. That shot placement, penetration, and diameter matters most above all else with handgun rounds. 9mm, 40s&w, 45acp, 357mag and the like are TERRIBLE man stoppers, and the survival rate for victims shot with a handgun is and has always been extremely high.

Firstly, survival rate and stopping someone are not the same thing. Don't get confused between stopping and killing, because there's a big difference.

Secondly, the majority of handgun wounds are very narrow and small in diameter, because the majority of shootings are with relatively slow and low powered cartridges. Many are with FMJ or whatever is readily available to the criminal element. And increasingly LE is adopting slower cartridges with heavier bullets, that provide less energy. 9mm 147gr, .38 Spl 158gr, .40S&W 180gr, .45acp 230gr. Those are the most popular cartridges, and the average velocity is generally under 1000fps prior to bullet expansion.

Do you see what I'm saying?

 

[WisBorn]

Yes, I watched that video. My main point is that yes, we can make direct comparison between two calibers for the same ammo manufacturer that will show that 357 is better; however, Paul could have also cherrypicked out different 9mm offering that may have performed just as good or better than the 357 rounds he used in the video...

With that said you could cherry pick a 357mag load that is better than the best 9mm load that you can find.

So when you select a load for personal defense you pick what you feel will be a good choice.
When comparing cartridges they should be similar or the most common.
Such as 115 hst versus 125 xtp.

 

[WrongHanded]

With that said you could cherry pick a 357mag load that is better than the best 9mm load that you can find.

Reminds me of that one guy who would compare the absolutely hottest 124gr 9mm +P+ load from Buffalo Bore or Underwood, to one of the lower velocity 125gr .357 Magnum loads for a big manufacturer, and then claim the 9mm was just as good. It's not, but some people like to call their mental gymnastics "critical thinking". At which point, words start to lose meaning.

 

[westernrover]

I've heard countless cases by all in the medical industry that the "tissue spray and the stretch" cavity is relatively small in all common handgun rounds and is only significant with rifle velocities. That shot placement, penetration, and diameter matters most above all else with handgun rounds. 9mm, 40s&w, 45acp, 357mag and the like are TERRIBLE man stoppers, and the survival rate for victims shot with a handgun is and has always been extremely high.

How many people continue to look at the "wound track" in clear or real gel and attempt to interpret wounding effectiveness? People are interpreting any tearing in gel as evidence of what they believe would be "permanent" wounding in tissue. Yet we see the actual gel experts like Fackler never did this. Don't get me wrong, I'm not holding Fackler up as the ultimate authority on wound ballistics, but this is the guy who gave us the 10% gel standard. It's at least fair to say he was an expert on shooting jello. Anyone looking at gel on Youtube or Luckygunner and gawking at the tears in it is not following Fackler. Fackler never presented photographs of gel as the result of his evaluation. He always used drawings. He understood that a photograph of a bullet in gel could never convey the terminal effectiveness of a cartridge. Yet today we see nothing but photographs and video of "wound tracks" in gel accompanied by the narration of amateur interpreters.

 

[WrongHanded]

Okay, I'm just going to do it. Happy reading:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...wQFnoECA0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw1LWkrR3KCXnNX_ZjZ6Ip3v

 

[21H40]

Okay, I'm just going to do it. Happy reading:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...wQFnoECA0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw1LWkrR3KCXnNX_ZjZ6Ip3v

That's some interesting reading. Had I been exposed to studies like that when I was in High School, I may have been more interest in becoming a scientist.

This line in the conclusion sticks out to me:
Consequently, unless more data points are used, this method is unlikely to distinguish between handgun loads with about the same level of effectiveness.

I understand that to mean that in their tests there was not a significant difference in the 357 and 40 caliber rounds at those speeds, and that the real world wounds are similar enough that you couldn't tell from the wound track which bullet was used.

 

[westernrover]

Hornady and Vista (Federal and Speer) provide a great deal of the law enforcement ammo to US agencies. They do more rigorous testing than LuckyGunner. I commend LuckyGunner for subjecting more brands of ammo to a consistent set of testing and I understand why they weren't able to follow the FBI protocol for testing more strictly. Let's compare the results.

Hornady published some of their results here: 1410995795-2018-TAP-Application-Guide.pdf (hornady.com)
Notice that they detail their meticulous process on pages 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the brochure. Whether we subscribe to gel testing or not, Hornady is following the prescription of the IWBA and FBI accurately, whereas hardly any amateurs ever do.

Here is a screenshot of the results for 9mm +P 135 grain Critical Duty

Notice this Hornady test was with a 4.5" barrel G17

The LG test is with a 3.5" barrel S&W M&P9C


In spite of the shorter barrel and lower median velocity of 1117 fps vs. Hornady's median velocity of 1157 fps, the LuckyGunner result in Clear Ballistics gel shows a median penetration depth of 18.4" vs. 15" in real gel (note that the Hornady "hvy clothing test would be most analogous to the LG test). As someone described recently, there is no way to translate Clear Ballistics gel results into real gel results. We can't just subtract 4" or something so simple.

In the spirit of this thread, here are the results in real gel for 135 grain Critical Duty in 357 from a 4.2" barrel GP100 (with a real world b/c gap)



Here's the LG results for the same ammo, also from a 4" GP-100 for comparison:



Again, the Clear Ballistics gel at uncontrolled temperature and without calibration using a BB is flattering the penetration results.


I mentioned that Vista provides some information too: Law Enforcement - Federal Premium LE, Speer LE, BLACKHAWK!, Eagle - Ammunition (vistaoutdoor.com)

They sometimes provide a photograph, but if not there is at least penetration data for heavy clothing and other tests.

 

[WrongHanded]

This line in the conclusion sticks out to me:
Consequently, unless more data points are used, this method is unlikely to distinguish between handgun loads with about the same level of effectiveness.

I understand that to mean that in their tests there was not a significant difference in the 357 and 40 caliber rounds at those speeds, and that the real world wounds are similar enough that you couldn't tell from the wound track which bullet was used.

That is my take away also. Though just running the math on the 115gr at 1450fps, and the 135gr at 1375fps, the kinetic energy is very close at 537ft.lbs and 567ft.lbs respectively. Compare those numbers to the 147gr at 990fps for 320ft.lbs.

But the important things to note are that; disproportionate wounding is possible at higher velocities still achievable with handgun cartridges; and that more energy seems to result in faster incapacitation, despite the higher energy cartridge using a lighter weight bullet that established doctrine says should be less effective than the heavier one.

We could also conclude that all shots to the vitals ultimately brought the targets down. And we can all clearly read the parameters of the experiments, which we could then recreate for ourselves should we choose to do so.

 

[BreechFace]

@westernrover

So Hornady is comparing 9mm +P to 357mag, same bullet, very similar velocities.

How is it that their findings show the same bullet in the 9mm going slower, expanding more than the 357 with the same bullet that is marginally faster?

 

[westernrover]

Ok, so the 135 grain 9x19mm bullet is going about 100 fps slower than the 135 grain .357 Magnum bullet, and both bullets are nominally "Critical Duty FTX" bullets "like a ballistic tip."
The expanded diameters in bare gel and heavy clothing are .57 and .58" for the Magnum and .55" and .60" for the 9x19mm. In my mind, the expansion shown here is a wash, especially considering they don't expand into perfect circles.
So if they're both the same mass and they're both expanding about the same but one is going about 100 fps faster than the other, what is the result?
We see the penetration of the 357 is 14 and 14.4" and the 9x19mm is 14 and 15".

It's easy to see why the OP explained "I'm not seeing a real difference in numbers....looking at the numbers on paper, the difference seem negotiable. ...this data has me not seeing the benefits."

What about the "max cavity"? This measurement is illustrated in the Hornady brochure I linked. It's listed as 2.5" and 3.5" for the 357 shots and 2.5" and 3" for 9x19mm. Again, no real difference. Besides, there is no reason to think these tears in the gel mean anything.
What about the depth to max cavity? The 9x19 showed a consistent 3" in heavy clothing and bare gel. The 357's max cavity came at 4" or 3.25". They both had an initial penetration of .5" or for .25" with 9mm in bare gel.

Is there a significant difference here? No. This is Hornady's law enforcement ammo and by design it is intended to meet the FBI standard and precisely that standard without exceeding it. They could have loaded the 357 Magnum to drive the 135 grain bullet to 1400 fps, but they didn't because it wasn't necessary to meet the design specification. They loaded it to achieve 14" in gel, a comfortable margin from the minimum 12" required. They could have loaded it with a bullet that would expand to .70" (many other bullets in LuckyGunner's test achieved that), but the FBI specification is 1.5X expansion and 1.5 times .357 is ~.54" Guess what expansion Hornady achieved?

You can buy or load 357 cartridges that will do other things. If you buy 357 cartridges that are well-designed and made to meet the FBI specification, that is what they will do.

 

[jstert]

me personally i don’t enjoy the sharp flashbang and higher cost of shooting 357mag. so i prefer 9mm, regardless of the expert analyses, which allows more practice and serves my humble defensive needs well enough. and anyway nothing that i must ever shoot is getting just one shot with a pause for me to see if it has been stopped.