Comparison of 2.25" 357 Mag to 4" 9mm using ballisiticsbytheinch.

[unclenunzie]

I just did a simplistic comparison between 357 and 9mm of expected velocities using a Ruger SP101 2.25" barrel length. Nothing scientific on my part, to be sure. BBTI uses a T/C encore to test each barrel length and cartridge. This method matches how autoloader barrels are measured (muzzle to breech face), but not how revolvers are measured (muzzle to forcing cone).

To equalize between them I measured my SP101 2.25" from muzzle to breech face, which gave me 3 15/16th inches, or nearly a 4" barrel length in line with their methods.

BBTI lists 357 mag Corbon DPX 125 gr 4" TC / encore barrel 1471 fps.

BBTI also accounts for cylinder gap in a separate set of tests (using a revolver modified to allow gap size adjustment) and their output for the same cartridge is as follows:

Corbon DPX 357 mag 125 gr 4" barrel no gap 1246 fps, .006 gap 1184 fps

I can't explain why the 4" revolver number with no gap is so different from the TC / encore test they did. To my mind they should be much closer and not 200+ fps apart. But at least in this particular test the loss to a .006 gap was roughly 60 fps.

For 9mm using their standard tests, they list:

4" Corbon 125 gr JHP +P at 1226 fps.

Comparing this to the similar Corbon 357 magnum load:

4" Corbon 125 gr JHP 1471 fps.

Dropping off the 71 fps for a .006 gap, its would seem an SP101 2.25" should give roughly 1400 fps, beating 9mm performance. Or if using the less favorable number from their revolver gap testing directly, 1184 fps, roughly the same performance (1184 vs 1226).

This leads me to believe that a 2.25" SP101 snub is equivalent or better performing than a 4" 9mm on a round for round basis only. And also that once the SP101 is empty, it makes a good club

Thoughts?

 

[mavracer]

With lighter bullets a snub 357 will get slightly more velocity than a 4" at max loadings, where the snub 357 has a big advantage is with bigger bullets. A snub 357 will push 158s faster than a 9 will 147s and gives one the option to go to 180s.
And the DPX load is a midrange load as the solid copper petals will shear off if pushed to hard.

 

[chicharrones]

Thoughts?

Are you actually going to be using Corbon ammo?

 

[unclenunzie]

Are you actually going to be using Corbon ammo?

No, I had not planned to. It matched up pretty well across their test data tables (357, gap, 9mm) so that's why I focused on it.

 

[jmr40]

Take a closer look at the actual 357 mag firearms tested on the BBI site. The 4" Smith 686 is considerably faster across the board than the 6" Colt Python and this isn't unusual. The problem with comparing different guns is that there is a HUGE difference between 2 different guns firing the same ammo in equal length barrels. Let alone different barrel lengths. The numbers shown for the individual guns is interesting, but tells us far more about how fast each individual gun shot rather than how much barrel length affects speed.

The numbers shown from the same barrel as it is cut shorter is a far more accurate as to relative speed compared to barrel length. The numbers shown from the barrel as it is cut short will probably be pretty accurate when compared to semi auto guns since barrel length is measured the same way. The numbers compared to revolvers will probably be slightly slower than what you'd see in the real world due to the way barrel length is measured with revolvers. But the relative difference is going to be more accurate. If you see 100 fps difference between a 3" and 4" gun, then on average I'd expect about 100 fps difference between real world revolvers with 3" vs 4" barrels. The actual speeds I see may well be somewhat faster than the numbers shown. But you can get a better idea exactly how much velocity loss you'll see with a shorter barrel. You just have to keep in mind that every gun is different. Don't get confused and let the exceptions to the rule make you think they are the rule. If you only compared the 686 and the Python on the BBI site you'd conclude ( Incorrectly) that a 4" barrel was faster than a 6" barrel.

Real world numbers will show the best 9mm+P 124 gr loads from a 4" barrel will beat most 2-2.5" 125 gr 357 loads, they will match 3" revolver loads and come within 50-75 fps of 4" revolver loads. Once you get to 6" and longer 357 revolvers the numbers aren't close, 357 wins handily. The 357 in all barrel lengths will beat 9mm with heavier bullets.

 

[everydefense]

I have a feeling the average user would not be as accurate with a 2.25" .357 mag compared to a 4" 9mm. Not to mention the capacity advantage of a full or even compact semi-auto. I readily admit that the .357 mag has superior ballistics compared to 9mm, but I feel the two advantages I mentioned for 9mm more than make up for that. (Not to mention I discovered I hate cleaning revolvers, haha.)

 

[chicharrones]

No, I had not planned to. It matched up pretty well across their test data tables (357, gap, 9mm) so that's why I focused on it.

I don't use Corbon either as it's rather pricey. Corbon sure puts out some impressive numbers though.

 

[chicharrones]

I have a feeling the average user would not be as accurate with a 2.25" .357 mag compared to a 4" 9mm.

Hard to say without knowing which 9mm pistola is being compared to the SP101 and if the SP101 in question can be thumb cocked or not.

 

[F-111 John]

To equalize between them I measured my SP101 2.25" from muzzle to breech face, which gave me 3 15/16th inches, or nearly a 4" barrel length in line with their methods.

Given the case length difference between 9mm and .357 Magnum (0.749" vs. 1.28" by my measurement,) wouldn't measuring from the breech face of a revolver skew the 'barrel length' measurements a bit too much in the revolver's favor? Instead of measuring from the breech face of the revolver, what if you subtract 0.749" from the barrel length of the semi-auto and compare that to the forcing cone to muzzle measurement of the revolver?

For example, I would think that my Glock 26 with a 3.426" barrel (as measured by me from muzzle to breech face, including muzzle crown) would be equal to a 2.676" revolver barrel if we subtract the 9mm case length.

However, this measurement does not take into account the length of cylinder the bullet travels through before it enters the forcing cone and the barrel proper. On my S&W Model 19, the cylinder length is 1.68" long from the breech face to the cylinder face, adding an adding an additional 0.4" of bullet travel to the measured 4.14" barrel length (as measured by me from rear of forcing cone to muzzle, including muzzle crown.)

I guess it is really hard to compare apples to oranges.

I can't explain why the 4" revolver number with no gap is so different from the TC / encore test they did. To my mind they should be much closer and not 200+ fps apart. But at least in this particular test the loss to a .006 gap was roughly 60 fps.

Passing through a forcing cone, perhaps?

 

[Chuck R.]

This leads me to believe that a 2.25" SP101 snub is equivalent or better performing than a 4" 9mm on a round for round basis only. And also that once the SP101 is empty, it makes a good club

Thoughts?

I have a feeling the average user would not be as accurate with a 2.25" .357 mag compared to a 4" 9mm. Not to mention the capacity advantage of a full or even compact semi-auto. I readily admit that the .357 mag has superior ballistics compared to 9mm, but I feel the two advantages I mentioned for 9mm more than make up for that. (Not to mention I discovered I hate cleaning revolvers, haha.)

Agreed.

While I can't argue the ballistics, they don't show the entire picture at least as far as a defensive handgun is concerned. Take both 4" 9mm and 2.25" .357 revolver at normal defensive distances 5 or 7 yards using a timer, and compare accuracy AND speed.

There's been a couple studies that come to the conclusion that most handgun grounds that are practical for SD purposes are not ideal for stopping human beings at least not with 1 shot. This one is one of my favorites:

https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power

Not so much because of it tracked the % that a cartridge was effective with a one shot stop, but because it demonstrated that on average it is going to take more than one round to incapacitate a threat.

The average number of rounds until incapacitation was also remarkably similar between calibers. All the common defensive calibers required around 2 rounds on average to incapacitate.

Once you accept that, then the importance of the shoot-ability of the cartridge combined with "platform" become more important than the actual ballistics once a minimum level of performance has been achieved.

So yea, a .357 Magnum snubnose edges a 4" 9mm in ballistic performance, but the folks that can shoot that snubnose as well (accuracy and speed) as a 4" barreled 9mm aren't all that common.

Chuck

 

[DownInTheDark]

I have a 3" Jframe 357 Mag and it hasn't had a failure to feed yet.

 

[eastbank]

and my revolver has never dropped its magizine and as a plus for semi fat slow men it can be fired thru a coat pocket if needed(all six shots). don,t get me wrong i have and like semi-auto,s, but for a quick trip to the store or like, i slip a revolver into my pocket. eastbank.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Well if power is the reason... Buffalo Bore 125 gr JHPs make around 1400 fps from a 2.25 inch bbl. and that way out performs any 9mm load.

https://www.buffalobore.com/index.php?l=product_detail&p=100

Such a powerful load would be hard to control from a small snub handgun.

But the mission of a snub five shooter is not the same as a 4 inch bbl. 9mm (service size weapon.)

Deaf

 

[Kleanbore]

I have a feeling the average user would not be as accurate with a 2.25" .357 mag compared to a 4" 9mm.

In practical terms, the appropriate balance of speed and precision in a defensive encounter will depend as much on controllability in rapid fire as on anything else. And no, the average user will likely not do very well in trying to use a snub .357 double action to get three to five shots into the upper chest of a charging attacker in a second and a half or thereabouts.

 

[unclenunzie]

Myself included, certainly. I acquired an additional SP101 hammer, removed the spur and SA sear from it. I've been practicing using some PRVI SJHP 158 Gr 357 mag rounds. The power seems to be there, and I can get hits, but no where near the speed and accuracy compared to even a 3.3 inch 9mm. Much easier to hit with 38 special in the SP101, the NYPD Speer load included. Said load in my 642 isn't bad and much easier and simpler to carry.

 

[mavracer]

There's more to handguns than just social work, the country has some other uses show me a load for a compact 9mm that pushes a 172gr Keith SWC 1100 fps.

 

[fastbolt]

Back in the heyday of service revolvers, it was pretty common to find guys carrying 2 1/2" snub Magnum revolvers.

That being the case, it was also fairly common for authors of magazine articles to do some periodic chronographing of popular loads in the short-barreled Magnums. Naturally, there were some variations among not only different loads (by different major ammo makers), but among different guns. One of the common explanations and phrases of the time involved describing some guns as having "faster" barrels.

That said, I remember that a couple of the commonly carried 125gr JHP Magnum loads I carried (Federal & Remington) often demonstrated being able to produce 1250-1300+fps in some of the 2 1/2" snubs. The heavier 158gr JHP/JSP's would produce 1000-1100fps. The mid-weight loads (like the 140 & 145gr Magnum loads) were often running somewhere inbetween the heavy & light bullets. I rather liked the W-W 145gr STHP, for its somewhat reduced felt recoil and the way the jacket opened up. I still do, and have a few hundred rounds left over from those days, stashed in my ammo supply.

I ended up letting MagNaPort Quad Port my SP101 many years ago. They said the velocity loss shouldn't be significant, but they couldn't give a specific figure, due to the characteristics of the individual barrels, B/C gaps, etc. It did, however, significantly reduce muzzle rise quite effectively. If it were any more effective it would probably cause the muzzle to dip. (Yes, having a ported gun as a dedicated defensive weapon means taking the vented gasses, and any shaved bullet fragments, into consideration when it comes to the grip and positioning of the weapon.)

One significant advantage of a short-barreled .357 Magnum revolver is that the hollowpoint cavity can be shaped to enhance expansion, without having to take into consideration having to feed the cartridge up a pistol's feed ramp. OAL is a concern, so the nose doesn't protrude from the cylinder face and lock up the cylinder, against the forcing cone, and bullet pull is also a consideration, especially when it comes to the lightest revolvers using titanium cylinders.

I especially liked the .357 JHP revolver bullets that had a lot of exposed lead noses, scalloped (SJHP) bullets, or some designs that had both a lot of exposed lead and notching cuts in both the lead and the jackets. I saw this (and still do) as an advantage possessed by bullets designed for revolvers which can't easily be duplicated in bullets made for use in pistols. I didn't mind a little potential for fragmentation, either.

I enjoyed that SP101DAO 2.25" for many years, and have only recently decided to sell it, simply because I seldom use it outside the range ... and a family member wants to buy it through a FFL (I've turned down offers from other cops over the years). I have a couple M&P 340's if I want to shoot Magnum loads in an even lighter 5-shot snub, and my well-used MagNaPorted and Duty Tuned Service-Six 4" HB revolver from many years ago.

I think the 3" is a very practical and handy barrel length for a .357 Magnum that's not being carried as a uniform service weapon. Just long enough to obtain some respectable velocities, but not so long to require a "service-length" belt holster (meaning not too long for long periods of being seated). I didn't see losing a round as being significant for the role in which I used my SP101DAO, meaning off-duty and for any short trips afield (where my 4" or longer .357's were heavier and larger).

Given my druthers, I'd sooner have a SP101 in traditional configuration (spurred hammer and SA capable), with a 3" barrel, than my SP101DAO 2.25" model, but I had to compromise on the shorter SP101 because they were still pretty new back when I bought mine, and the 3" guns were scarce. I've often thought of picking up a 3" model, but I've become rather spoiled with the "pocketability" of the 2" snubs, particularly the Airweight .38's and M&P 340's I've acquired.

As far as comparing a 9mm to a .357 snub? I'd always take the .357 snub ... and I own half a dozen 9mm compact & subcompact pistols, with the barrels ranging from 3" to 3.5" (so I have some familiarity with how 9mmP ballistics and ballistic performance can vary in range).

When it comes right down to it, I like the lightweight 5-shot .38 snubs for their practical and acceptable ballistics ... the 9mmP pistols of diminutive size for their balance of acceptable (albeit relatively low) power and controllability ... and the short-barreled .357 Magnum snubs for their added velocities over the .38 Spl & +P, and a wider range of bullet weights than 9mmP.

I like all 3 calibers and don't see how they need for them to be compared and rated against each other.

 

[Kleanbore]

When evaluating handguns for self defense, terminal ballistics should reconsidered only in the light of the question, "is it adequate, or is it questionable?". Differences in terms of a few feet per second are unlikely to matter.

What will matter a lot more is the ability of the defender to make effective hits timely, and that will depend largely on trigger pull and recoil and on having a sufficient round count.

On that last subject, JohnKSA ran some numbers, and based on the assumptions he selected, he concluded that a defender with a five round capacity is likely to be seriously handicapped, and that six is better, and seven, better still, up to a practical asymptotic maximum. His analysis has been discussed at length on THR.

Those who do not like that analysis can select their own assumptions and run the numbers themselves, Actually, it would be a good idea for anyone who has the time to do so, so that the sensitivity of the results to variations in the assumptions can be better understood.

 

[Confederate]

Geesh, I must be getting old. I can remember being young enough to worry about things like cylinder gaps, barrel lengths and 30-year warranties on my bed mattresses! Now I just pause to admire the beauty of my Ruger Security-Sixes (and Deaf's Rugers, which bear a startling resemblances to my own!).



Now I spend more time worrying about which batteries work best in my flashlights and how to get the best runtimes from them. Or the best knives to add to my collection. My days of buying handguns are over because I live in Maryland, a state that requires I take a 4-hour course for more than a hundred bucks to qualify for a state license to buy (even tho I have handguns...it's strictly putative on the part of the state towards its citizens). Anyway, I can't afford the only handguns I'd be interested in, so I can't complain.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Geesh, I must be getting old. I can remember being young enough to worry about things like cylinder gaps, barrel lengths and 30-year warranties on my bed mattresses! Now I just pause to admire the beauty of my Ruger Security-Sixes (and Deaf's Rugers, which bear a startling resemblances to my own!).

Yea Confederate, we do have something in common here!

That last one is my newest one. Just did an action job (it's a keeper cause it shoots very well.) I plan to do some hog hunting on a friends land soon and it will come with me!

Deaf

 

[Kleanbore]

Mr. Smith, those are very fine looking revolvers!

 

[Confederate]

That last one is my newest one. Just did an action job (it's a keeper cause it shoots very well.) I plan to do some hog hunting on a friends land soon and it will come with me!

Barrel length and caliber are only two aspects, and they don't necessarily have everything to do with stopping power or self defense. Certainly the power of a .357 makes the round appealing, but though shorter barrels result in models that that make them easier to carry concealed, we both know there are other considerations for having stainless snubbies! Even if you had no intention of carrying them, a little oil would protect them from rust; keeping them in soft rugs would prevent holster wear and longer barrels would enable better accuracy and greater velocity. And yet there's something about a snubnose powerhouse that sacrifices in a number of areas because 1) they look cool and 2) they're easier to line up on a close target! They're lighter, better balanced and...I think that's it. Oh, and they're far more accurate than many people think.



Some years ago, I took some friends out shooting. I set some clay pigeons up at a hundred yards and soon was hitting them. So was the woman I was teaching! A number of the others couldn't believe we were hitting the things so often, either. But even had we not hit our targets so often, I do believe I would have been as fond of the guns. So there is the appeal. The things look like .38s but they hit like a sledgehammer! So they give up some power. So they produce small atomic-looking fireballs (sideways); they command respect. (And did I mention they looked cool?) With the right ammo they could shoot out a tire or drop a determined 300-lb crackhead. So why did the stainless snubbies, despite their limitations, always seem to outsell their bigger brothers? I only have a theory, and that's because the larger guns appeared more powerful. The .357 stainless snubbies not only could be taken out in the rain (no small feat in the day), they were powerhouses for their sizes.


The 4-inch Security-Six is great with a round-butt, though
the 6-incher would be pushing it.

I've always liked all .357s, but you've always preferred the snubs.Yet I think my favorite is my 3-inch Speed-Six. I like the magnum snubs down to 2.5 inches, but below that's too short. And when Ruger went to 1.82-inches for its LCR, it was just too much of a barrel reduction.

But I love the 2.75-3 inch ones the best. I also like the Tyler T-Grips for comfort. The Colt Pythons have horrible grips, too narrow at the top where the fingers are largest and too large at the bottom where the fingers are smallest. They are great guns if you're an orangatang, but the snubbie Pythons simply lack the appeal of the shorter S&W 66s, 19s, and the Ruger "Six" series.

 

[edmo01]

Several meandering thoughts...

First some background. I rotate my carry between both semi-autos as well as several different small revolvers. One of my carry revolvers is the S&W 640 Pro Series below chambered in 357 Magnum.

Fireballs. Many 357 Magnum loadings are tailored for barrels longer than those found on common snubbies. As such, when these loads are fired in a short barreled revolver there is a huge fireball. This is because the slow burning powder runs out of barrel before it is consumed. It looks impressive to those next to you at the range, however this fireball is wasted powder and velocity. Fortunately, there are some ammo makers producing defensive loads with powders tailored for short barrels.

357 or 38+P? Some will say 357 Magnum rounds fired in a snubbie lose so much velocity that you would be better off shooting 38 +P instead. You do lose velocity in a snubbie, however don't be fooled into thinking a +P round's velocity is anywhere near the velocity you will achieve with the mangnum round. An argument could also be made that the increased velocity of a magnum round over the +P round is more than offset if you also compare the magnum's increased recoil, blast, and slower follow up shots as experienced by the average shooter. If you are less sensitive to recoil, the magnum rounds may be worth it. Otherwise the +P loadings might be a good compromise.

Now to the semi-auto 9mm vs 357 Magnum snubbie. The S&W 640 below weighs in at 23 ounces, but has a smaller practical form factor than any 4" semi-auto. It is very easy to carry. For me to get close in effective size I would need to drop down to a sub-compact sized gun (GLOCK 26). I'm not sure what the velocity numbers are for BB ammo fired out of the G26's shorter 9mm barrel, but I would think it will be much slower than a similar weight 357 Magnum round out of a snubbie.

Now to recoil. Take any average shooter and give them a GLOCK 26 loaded with +P ammo and a snubbie filled with 357 Magnum rounds. The G26 will likely be "fun" to shoot yet most will be done with the revolver before they finish one cylinder. The difference in recoil is truly an apples and oranges comparison. Unless you condition yourself to the significant recoil and blast of a snubbie chambered in 357 magnum it may be too much. Some shooters are less sensitive to recoil while others are not. As always, YMMV...

Edmo

 

[Kleanbore]

The S&W 640 below weighs in at 23 ounces, but has a smaller practical form factor than any 4" semi-auto. It is very easy to carry. For me to get close in effective size I would need to drop down to a sub-compact sized gun (GLOCK 26). I'm not sure what the velocity numbers are for BB ammo fired out of the G26's shorter 9mm barrel, but I would think it will be much slower than a similar weight 357 Magnum round out of a snubbie.

Now to recoil. Take any average shooter and give them a GLOCK 26 loaded with +P ammo and a snubbie filled with 357 Magnum rounds. The G26 will likely be "fun" to shoot yet most will be done with the revolver before they finish one cylinder. The difference in recoil is truly an apples and oranges comparison. Unless you condition yourself to the significant recoil and blast of a snubbie chambered in 357 magnum it may be too much. Some shooters are less sensitive to recoil while others are not.

I had a Model 642, and while my Springfield XD 4.0 is slightly longer, length is really not the primary factor in concealability, and I have found it just as convenient to carry as the revolver.

Personal sensitive to recoil may be a factor, but the real issue is how fast controlled rounds can be fired.

 

[edmo01]

I had a Model 642, and while my Springfield XD 4.0 is slightly longer, length is really not the primary factor in concealability, and I have found it just as convenient to carry as the revolver.

Personal sensitive to recoil may be a factor, but the real issue is how fast controlled rounds can be fired.

I agree, the speed and accuracy of follow up shots is a key factor. The shooter's ability to handle the significant recoil of a magnum snubbie will directly affect both the speed and accuracy of those follow up shots. Regardless, I will say almost all semi auto 9mm handguns will be easier to run faster and more accurately than most magnum snubbies by most shooters... As I get longer in the tooth, more and more I find shooting heavy recoiling handguns less fun!

I also own a S&W 642 and find with it's short barrel, small grips, and light weight (less than a pound), it makes a perfect pocket gun. My pockets are fairly small, so with pocket carry I would say length does play a factor.

Edmo