WrongHanded
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2017
- Messages
- 4,771
Current military training round. Impressive 1320 FPS and a flat point. View attachment 1127920
Says 115gr on the box though. Not 124gr.
Current military training round. Impressive 1320 FPS and a flat point. View attachment 1127920
Current military training round. Impressive 1320 FPS and a flat point.
Interesting! I wonder if that small of a flat point makes a significant difference compared to the sharp FMJ standard.
Probably helps the bullet track straight through whatever it hits rather than yaw that a typical round nose will show.Interesting! I wonder if that small of a flat point makes a significant difference compared to the sharp FMJ standard.
I was just comparing Lucky Gunner's ballistic testing results, and I'm not seeing a real difference in numbers. The general consensus by most would be that 357mag is more powerful than 9mm, but looking at the numbers on paper, the difference seem negotiable. I carry a revolver loaded with 125gr 357, but this data has me not seeing the benefits.
9mm Luger (9x19) Ballistic Test Results
.357 Magnum Ballistic Test Results
(Please let's leave capacity, ammo availability and cost, etc out of the discussion, and only focus on the performance and ballistic difference only. )
You are correct. What dawned on me is that on this forum and all other firearm forums, there seems to be a weekly holy war debate among different combinations of self defense calibers and which is better. Looking at the Lucky Gunner charts, I realized that they all are pretty much have simular end results in ballistic testing.What numbers are you looking at? Velocity? Energy? Expansion diameter and penetration depth?
The prevailing theory of the present day on handgun terminal ballistics is that velocity, bullet mass, energy, momentum and similar numbers serve only to achieve penetration and expansion in gel. This is the standard that law enforcement in the US has adopted via the FBI and the consumers in the US have a long tradition of buying defensive handgun ammo similar to their law enforcement agencies. Because of this, the goal is for all the ammo to have the same result with respect to penetration and expansion in gel. In this respect, 357 cannot do any more than another cartridge that achieves the same goal expansion of 1.5X and the same goal penetration of 12-18 inches.
The 357 is capable of firing significantly heavier bullets at much higher velocities than 9x19mm, but this capability is regarded as only adding recoil while not resulting in a meaningful difference in the terminal effect. If we agree with this prevailing theory of terminal ballistics, we wouldn't pursue the greater external ballistics the 357 is capable of, but we would seek to load just enough to meet the goal penetration and expansion while keeping recoil to the minimum level needed and to do it with the barrel length that we desire -- 357 is commonly shot in 1.875" barrels and in 6" barrels, neither of which are at all common for 9x19.
The 125 grain bullet from a 357 can be problematic. If it is loaded to exit the particular gun with the particular barrel length at a velocity that is known to produce a result with the particular bullet used that expands and penetrates according to the gel standard, then it can be regarded as dependable under the prevailing standard. As such, it probably won't be much different than a 9x19 that similarly meets the standard. On the other hand, if the 357 is used to drive the bullet to a high velocity, the hollowpoint can overexpand and penetrate less. The 125 grain is prone to doing this. Another way a 125 grain 357 can fail to perform as desired is when the cartridge is designed to handle the velocity of a longer barrel, the bullet is made tough enough so that it doesn't splatter open at high velocity impact and under-penetrate, but then it is shot out of a little snubby barrel and fails to expand at all and then over-penetrates.
Because of the above risks with 125 grain 357 loads, there may be more security in using heavier bullets with 357. The additional sectional density and momentum will better assure that penetration to standard depth is achieved even after good expansion. This is why the 135 grain hollowpoint bullets were developed. Of course, the 158 grain also works and has been around since the days when cast lead prevailed. There are also popular monos like the 140 grain Barnes that Barnes (was Remington) itself loads, Federal loads, and Buffalo Bore as well.
I personally am not worried about capacity, weight, or size of the firearm for the sake of this discussion. I respectfully rather not get into a semiauto vs revolver debate.9mm vs 357 Mag - big difference in capacity.
357 Mag is going to be 6 shots maximum (in most examples) before reload and 6 rounds is comparatively capacity deficient.
9mm even with a small Sig 365 we have 11 rounds, in a compact Glock 19 we have 16 rounds (no mag limit)
If we want 357 mag ballistics and not be capacity deficient with only 6 rounds then 357 Sig is the answer:
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/357-sig-gel-test/
357 Sig Winchester 125 PDX defender @ 1,423 fps = 562# KE - that is on par with full power 357 Mag
If youre using the gun for a defensive weapon, I think the more important aspect here, is whichever you shoot the best with in a realistic manner (quickly and repetitively) over what little difference in power you might gain from one over the other. The extra power does you no good if you cant handle and shoot the gun well.
I have a number of different guns in both calibers, and as much as I like the 357's, they wouldnt be, and arent, my choice for that purpose. The 9mm is just the better choice there, and for a number of reasons
Now for a hunting round, the 357 would be the choice hands down.
For SD at 3 feet neither meets the discussed 2200 fps so essentially the same.
If youre comparing "sorta apples to apples", say a 2" J or K frame 357 vs a Glock 26, both loaded with a common SD load for the calibers, I can pretty much guarantee you, the 26 will be a lot easier to shoot well with for most people, especially for someone who doesn't keep up with things in regular practice.I agree that maxing out the power of the 357 is not likely to result in the most controllable gun and that bodes poorly for use in self-defense. However, the recoil characteristics of a cartridge are never independent of the gun. We've seen how the 357 can match or best the smaller 9x19's ballistics and it can do it from a variety of barrel lengths. If we start with a heavy steel gun with a smooth trigger and without a reciprocating slide and then we load the cartridge only to what's necessary to achieve the gel performance standard, it will compare very favorably in handling and shootability to a lightweight polymer gun whose cartridge must be nearly maxed-out and the barrel length critical to avoid failing our performance standard. The 357 can achieve the standard with leisure and the gun can do it as pleasantly as any other and more so than any polymer 9.
I get what @westernrover is saying. I agree with him as I kinda sort of argued his same point in the past in a different caliber debate.If youre comparing "sorta apples to apples", say a 2" J or K frame 357 vs a Glock 26, both loaded with a common SD load for the calibers, I can pretty much guarantee you, the 26 will be a lot easier to shoot well with for most people, especially for someone who doesn't keep up with things in regular practice.
And its not so much the power of the rounds thats important here, I really dont think youre going to see a whole lot of difference between the two in performance, but the shootabilitly of one over the other, makes it a lot easier to put the rounds where they need to go and to continue to do so, repetitively as necessary.
As I said earlier, I shoot a number of these same guns on pretty much a weekly basis, and the level of difficulty and the results of a quick 3-4 round burst on target at 5 yards from a Glock 26 compared to a 2.5" Model 19 or 3" Model 65, are noticeably different.
I went from carrying 45acp for a couple of decades, over to 357SIG when it showed up, at first because it was supposed to replicate the 125 grain 357mags and offer what was supposed to be the high bar standard at the time, and then after spending some time with it, and realizing I could get basically the same performance from 9mm (9mm+P+ and the standard 357SIG load at the time, were basically the same thing. Both 40000psi loads), and not have the wear and tear on some guns, and have more versatility there, I went to 9mm, and have stayed with it since.
And for comparison here in shootability, the 125 grain 357SIG shot from a P226 or Glock 31, were easier to shoot than the 125 grain 357mag from my 4" Model 19. The only noticeable difference to me between my Glock 31 and my Glock 17 shooting +P+ 9mm, was the bark of the 357SIG. If someone handed you a loaded gun and you didnt know what it was, other than that bark, you wouldnt know what it was.
I carried a couple of 357mag revolvers early on but quickly switched over to and stayed with the 1911 in 45acp, and part of that was for the same reasons I think the 9mm makes more sense than the 357mag. The guns themselves are more the thing than the rounds. The autos are just easier to shoot well with (beyond basic type target shooting) and generally easier to carry. Both, or in this case, all three rounds, will easily do the job, as long as you hit the right things, and if you dont, all will still require you to keep shooting until the desired result is obtained, or you run the gun dry.
All the paper number do, is let someone with an argument based on the numbers. But those numbers usually really dont mean a whole lot in real world performance, especially if the shooters performance is reduced because of it.
I was just comparing Lucky Gunner's ballistic testing results...
Looking first at the bare gelatin results, on average, the sampled bullets penetrated 35.5% deeper into the clear synthetic product than they did in the organic, 10% calibrated gelatin, with a range between 34.4% (the 135+P Hornady Critical Duty) and 36.3% (the standard pressure, 124 grain Federal HST).
When we added the FBI heavy clothing layer in front, the bullets fired into the clear synthetic continued to penetrate deeper than they did in the organic gelatin, by a startling average of 48.1% for all the tested cartridges. The highest difference in penetration was 56.1% more in the clear synthetic than the organic (the standard pressure, 124 grain Federal HST), and the lowest difference was 38.2% more in the clear synthetic than the organic (the 135+P Hornady Critical Duty).
The percentages are fine, but to put things into better perspective, the 48.1% average increase in penetration for the six loads fired into the clear synthetic gelatin, covered in heavy clothing, represents a little more than 6” of extra penetration in the clear synthetic product, compared to the organic product...
...There is no apparent “conversion” between data derived from 10% organic gelatin and the current version of the clear synthetic. Unfortunately, our limited test doesn’t indicate a conversion “shortcut” is likely. It would be convenient if we could develop a conversion factor that would equate the organic gelatin and clear synthetic gelatin, but our data indicate that bullet performance is too variable in these mediums to develop a universal “rule of thumb.” Perhaps a skilled mathematician could derive a constant from a more complete sample, but we’re not seeing one lurking in the data.
right, and I'm a .357 fan - but, if factory SD loadings are designed for expansion and some defined penetration, getting that projectile moving faster isn't necessarily better I think is what the OP is getting at.It's amazing how long this thread has gone.
Given two cartridges of the same (or almost the same) caliber but different case capacities, there are only two ways the smaller of the two (9mm) can be as powerful as the larger (.357); One either increases the chamber pressure of the smaller cartridge in order to increase the velocity of it's bullets, or decreases the chamber pressure of the larger in order to decrease the velocity of it's bullets. It really is that simple and there really is nothing magic about the 9mm, no pixie dust, no voodoo, no special powders, etc.
35W