autos powerful enough to be called MAGNUM!

[MCgunner]

It's why God gave us the Registered Magnum and all those revolvers that came after. I don't see any auto designs as strong enough. The Delta Elite was notorious for frame cracking. 10mm is just too much for anything smaller than the Bren. Glocks seem to hold up, but I don't care much for a gun that won't shoot cast lead. My .357s will shoot cast lead just fine, with a gas checked bullet to prevent leading.

I like autos and my collection is slowly growing, but revolvers are why there are magnums. I don't see the need for an autoloading magnum and never have. Dirty Harry thought he needed one, I guess, but heck, he didn't give up on his 29 until he lost it in the drink.

Not only are revolvers stronger and lighter to carry in magnum calibers, but they also tend to be more accurate than autos. In the field, where shots to 100 yards might be taken, that matters. They're also a bit easier to add optics to. If I'm going to take a Desert Eagle afield, hell, I'll take an Encore in .308 Winchester and have a lighter, more carriable package. Talk about your MAGNUMS!

Hunting, the thing I think anything over .357 is most appropriate for, is a one shot, one kill proposition. Spray and pray has no business in the woods. Some think the 10 is a better bear defense gun for hiking, but if you get off more than one shot at a charging bear before he shoves that G20 where the sun don't shine, you're really quick. I'd rather take that one shot with magnum revolver, myself.

 

[agtman]

I don't see any auto designs as strong enough. The Delta Elite was notorious for frame cracking. 10mm is just too much for anything smaller than the Bren. ***

***

Not so quick on that myth ... a hold-over from '80s gun rag articles.

Only on some models of the first runs of the early Deltas did a "crack" occur - and that was limited to that little metal bridge-thingy that ran across the top of the slide-stop cutout. When Colt removed that bit of metal, the so-called "frame-cracking" complaints on Deltas disappeared. In fact, it became a Colt design change to all subsequent 10mm and 45acp 1911s.

It's probably true that DEs were under-sprung relative to the high-performance, Norma-level ammo of the day, but that's easily fixed (again, relative to the velocity/energy level of the 10mm ammo you intend to shoot) with Wolff XP springs. For the watered-down, .40-level 10mm loads, the factory set-up is fine.

As far as 10mm pistols smaller than a 5" Bren Ten or 1911, there's the Glock 29, which has held up very well firing DT and Buffalo Bore-level 10mm loads.

Some (not me) actually like the all-steel Witness 10mm "compact" model.

In "Commander"-size 10mms, there's the CZ/DW CBOB, a 4.25" 1911, as well as S&W's 4.25" 10mm 1066/1076/1086 pistols, which appear now and then on the pre-owned market.

 

[PigButtons]

.357 sig

I can't believe that nobody mentioned the 357 SIG. A 100 gn bullet at 1600 fps. What does it have to be to get into the magnum club. Even the 125 gn is going 1350 fps. I don't see a lot of difference between it and a 357 Mag.

 

[Gryffydd]

I don't see a lot of difference between it and a 357 Mag.

Max energy (that I've seen) from a 4" barrel:
357 Mag: 711
357 Sig: 575

Of course this is ignoring things like bullet profiles semi-autos won't shoot and capacity and reload times a revolver can't match etc.

 

[Girodin]

Glocks seem to hold up, but I don't care much for a gun that won't shoot cast lead.

$100 and your problem is solved, shoot lead to your hearts delight.

 

[jmortimer]

The 10mm which seems to be the caliber that gets the semi-auto crowd the most excited about is half the gun compared to .45 Colt and .44 mag which are twice as powerful and we are just getting started at that level for revolvers. Revolvers are also the fastest shots for experienced and dedicated shooters. For self defense against "bad guys" the semi-auto is a good choice but for serious work outdoors there is no comparison. To each his own. I'll take a revolver any day.

 

[Girodin]

The 10mm which seems to be the caliber that gets the semi-auto crowd the most excited about is half the gun compared to .45 Colt and .44 mag which are twice as powerful

I like revolvers and autos so I'm not sure which crowd I fall into. I would sumbit that many 10mm fans and users (particularly those that shoot it in an auto) have a different end use in mind than big bore revolver users. A glock 29 makes a much better carry gun IMHO than does a big honking revolver, despite not having the edge on said revolver in sheer power.

I though about buying one of these (the bottom one) for giggles to pull out when my shooting buddy got out his Desert Eagle .50 AE. I'm not sure what else I would do with a giant 45/70 revolver though.

 

[IdahoLT1]

As far as follow-up shots - it depends on who is doing the shooting - genrally I suppose you could say yes - but the fastest shooters use revolvers. Let's Consider the 10 mm which gets so many of you all so excited. Even "Old School" revolver calibers like the .45 Colt and .44 mag have twice the "power" of the 10mm and we are just getting started at that point. Let's consider large dangerous animals. The 10mm will put a two foot long "hole" in the critter so let's say you get off two or even three shots. Probably won't make much of an impact. Now lets take the .45 Colt which will shoot through the animal on a broadide and shoot end to end on really large animals. So one round from the 11.5mm .45 Colt will have more effect than multiple shots from the beloved 10mm. For personal defense against a bad guy the semi-auto is a good choice but not for serious work outdoors.

I don't think anyone was saying a revolver was less powerful. The 10mm is good for black bear/mountain lion as its ballistically equivalent to a .357. You get a capacity and reduced recoil advantage in 10mm over 357.

If a person wants brute power, they'll buy a revolver. If a person wants high capacity, manageable recoil and quicker reloads, they'll buy an autoloader. Theres a reason why very few guns are chambered in magnum powered cartridges. It's not because they can't take the abuse(if enough time and money was spent, they could develop stronger frames, slides and other parts). It's because there is little market for it. Why spend millions of dollars trying to find an answer to something when its been already answered?

 

[MCgunner]

$100 and your problem is solved, shoot lead to your hearts delight.

And, if I cared a nit for Glocks, I would consider it.

 

[MCgunner]

If a person wants brute power, they'll buy a revolver. If a person wants high capacity, manageable recoil and quicker reloads, they'll buy an autoloader.

You left out, "if guy wants reliable accuracy in the field"...revolver. I have some revolvers that will shoot 4" at 100 yards. I haven't seen many autos capable of that. Those that are are competition guns and not of magnum power.

 

[PigButtons]

Max energy (that I've seen) from a 4" barrel:
357 Mag: 711
357 Sig: 575

I don't know where you got your data or learned your physics but energy is a function of mass times velocity. Same grain bullet at the same speed is the same energy.

My data comes from:http://www.shootingtimes.com/ballistics/?url=/ballistics/357_magnum.html&x=3&y=7
and
http://www.shootingtimes.com/ballistics/?url=/ballistics/357_sig.html&x=15&y=7

 

[MCgunner]

I got 662 ft lbs, 1302 fps out of a 2.3" barrel SP101 firing 180 grain Hornady over 13.8 grains AA#9. It pushes 785 ft lbs, 1400 fps from my 6.5" Blackhawk. The heavies are less affected by barrel length than the 125 grain stuff.

The Sig can only approximately equal the 125 grain .357 magnum load from a 4" barrel. It can't even close to push a 180 grain bullet. That spells versatility, and I ain't even talked .38s and small game. If all you care about is killin' people, the Sig is about as good as the light weight .357 bullets. I carry a 140 Speer in my 3" Taurus 66 and it pushes 600 ft lbs from that gun. More importantly, it is very accurate.

BTW, with the lighter bullets, you can run over 500 ft lbs from the .40 Smith. I don't really see any other reason for the Sig except the sales pitch. It really can't do anything the .40 can't do. Truth be told, it's a .355 Sig, anyway. But, more the merrier, I guess. Gun companies have to sell guns, that's why there's upteen bazillion rifle calibers for deer and not one of 'em will kill a deer any deader than the other one.

 

[Gryffydd]

Same grain bullet at the same speed is the same energy.

No kidding?

I don't know where you got your data or learned your physics but energy is a function of mass times velocity.

Then maybe you should ask nicely instead of getting all snarky Or at least look around at more than one source of data.
http://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=103
From a 4" barrel their 125gr load goes 1600fps.
And a big +1 to what MCgunner just posted. 180-200gr bullets give the Mag a big step up in versatility over the Sig.

 

[PigButtons]

Sorry; didn't want to sound snarky, just confused. I'll try to keep it civil.

Since the OP's question was not about which auto powerful enough to be as good as the best revolver round, I didn't try to answer that question. Rather I gave statistics from a reasonably reliable source to indicate that for the same weight bullet the 357 sig compares well to the 357 mag. Unless you think that only heavier bullets out of the 357 mag should be called magnums I expect that the 357 sig is roughly equal if all else is equal; bullet weight, barrel length, velocity.

Again, the question is which auto rounds are powerful enough to be called MAGNUM. Barrel length, rifling, best high performance round available, etc are outside of the scope of the question.
More statistics:
http://waterguy.us/handgun.htm
http://www.handgunsmag.com/ballistics/357_magnum.html
http://www.handgunsmag.com/ballistics/357_sig.html
http://www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_trajectory_table.htm
http://www.arizonagunrunners.com/handgunballistics.pdf

 

[Peter M. Eick]

If you want a magnum autoloader. Get the original and still the best. The 44 Automag. Everyone should have at least 1.

 

[steveracer]

I've always called .40 S&W, "Forty Special" and 10mm "Forty Magnum".
I'd say that 7.62X25 is the clear winner as the best cost-per-power round in the market.

 

[MCgunner]

The auto mag is more a collector piece. Didn't AMT build 'em for a while? I won't want an AMT built one, not if it's anything like the Hardballer I had. Anyway, I could probably buy 5 Freedom Arms's in .454 Casull for what one auto mag would cost. Then there's the matter of cutting down .308 brass to make the ammo, believe that's what I read about it. No thanks. Just trimming 9x19 down to 9x18 for makarov loads has proved to be a bit of a pain. Kinda cool having free brass, though. I need all my .308 brass......for my .308.

 

[Molasses]

The auto mag is more a collector piece. <break> Anyway, I could probably buy 5 Freedom Arms's in .454 Casull for what one auto mag would cost.

Then there's the matter of cutting down .308 brass to make the ammo, believe that's what I read about it. No thanks.

1. Sales tax brought the price for my Auto Mag to just over $1,700 when I bought it a couple of years ago. Prices hadn't changed a whole lot the last time I checked and I doubt they've changed substantially over the last 6 mo. or so. Where are you planning to find five Freedom Arms .454s under $400 apiece?
   
2. Making your own .44 AMP brass from '06-family rifle cases isn't just a lot of work, it's expensive to get into; I checked out the price on the die set involved from RCBS and it was $$$. But. Not to fear: Starline makes .44 AMP brass, although everybody is on backorder just now until they make another batch.

 

[SIGLBER]

The name Magnum comes from Doug Wesson. He liked Champagne. In the world of wine tasting a Magnum of Champagne is a larger than standard bottle. So when the .38 was lengthened to make the .357 it was larger than standard so he called the pumped up .38 a Magnum. The traditional Magnum came from taking a standard caliber like the .44 Special. Stretch the case to add more powder and you have the .44 Magnum. So if we follow Mr. Wessons guidelines for Magnums alot of the rounds we call Magnums are not. Just a little historical foot note. Magnum catches peoples attention though. But the .500 S&W is not a Magnum, but it hits real hard. More so than a .44 Magnum.

 

[Clifford]

It's not the most powerfull round today (especially at mfr loads) but I'm a little suprised not one person mentioned the first magnum, the .38 super! No it wasn't made any longer than the .38 ACP but they did "magnumize" the powder charge! 130 RN @ 1300 FPS was the original load I think.

 

[19-3Ben]

I can't believe that nobody mentioned the 357 SIG. A 100 gn bullet at 1600 fps. What does it have to be to get into the magnum club. Even the 125 gn is going 1350 fps. I don't see a lot of difference between it and a 357 Mag.

My 3" SP101 fires a 158gr. bullet at 1350. THAT to me is the difference. You add 33grains to that 125gr pill in the .357sig and see just how fast it flies.
As MCgunner points out, it's the versatility of bullet weight/design/charge that really differentiates the two. The .357mag can pump out heavy bullets faster which arguably makes it a better hiking/camping/etc... gun.
That being said, I agree completely that the .357 sig would be considered a "magnum" in the autoloader world. It's an amazing round and I'm sorry it hasn't caught on more than it has.

In the same vein as the .357sig, what do we think of the .32NAA as a "magnum" round?
Sure it's nowhere near the power level of the 10mm, .460rowland or anything like that. But much as the .22wmr was the powerhouse of the rimfire world, I'd offer up for your consideration, the .32NAA as the magnum of the mousegun world.
Anyone willing to walk down that path with me?

 

[conhntr]

No!!

 

[oasis618]

Dodge makes an auto called a Magnum...

 

[Shopping A Round]

Dodge makes an auto called a Magnum...

Not for a long time, my friend.

 

[oasis618]

No they still do. It's a frickin station wagon!