This is just the way I see it, folks.
7.62x25:
Cons: I understand. It's a cartridge for some discontinued weapons which made it into the surplus market and were sold at bargain prices. But what's the big deal? There was already the .30 Luger, which fell into general disuse by the German military long ago because of its lack of "stopping power." (Gee, I really hate that term, but what are you going to do? It's descriptive!) The .30 Luger has a somewhat lower velocity than the 7.62x25, but it's still in the same category: A high-velocity .30 caliber handgun cartridge with a relatively light bullet (85-93 grains.) For my money, they are practically the same and would share the same limitations.
Pros: With suitable bullets (hollowpoints or possibly softpoints) these high-velocity .30s should give acceptable performance for self-defense.
.357 Sig:
Cons: Whoop-de-doooo! We have one more 9mm! How many so far: .38 Super, 9x21, 9x23, .356 TSW, 9mm Magnum, etc. etc.
Pros: It's just another 9mm, but with somewhat higher velocity.
400 CorBon:
Cons: When I first heard about this cartridge, I thought "WHAT? WHY do we need another 10mm, and one that shoots lighter bullets???" It was at the top of my list of soon-to-be-obsolete handgun cartridges. The only good reason for its existence, that I could gather, was so that a .45 ACP shooter could switch to a .40 caliber by merely replacing barrels. But why, oh why, would a .45 shooter want to do this? Has any .40 caliber handgun cartridge proven itself more effective than the .45 ACP?
Pros: There probably would be little or no difference in effectiveness between this round and the .40 S&W, or even some of the lighter loads of the 10mm.
.40 S&W:
Cons: This "10mm Lite" really caught on quickly with law enforcement and self-defense shooters! I attribute this, in part, to some of the horror stories (or urban legends, maybe?) which were surfacing about the 9mm's lack of effectiveness in certain more or less extreme situations. But does the .40 S&W have any real advantage over the 9mm, which it seemed to eclipse, or the .45 ACP? Time will tell, maybe, but there remains the one unarguable truth/persistent dogma: All handgun cartridges are inherently underpowered.
Pros: The .40 is a bit over four-hundreths of an inch larger than the 9mm and has a bullet which weighs up to 15 hundreths of an ounce more. It also has a somewhat higher velocity than many loadings of the .45 ACP.
.41 Magnum
Cons: To my mind, the .357 Magnum has long proved itself as one of the most effective rounds for a revolver in terms of self-defense/law-enforcement. It has been even used as a hunting cartridge. But when the .357 is not enough, there is the .44 Magnum and its numerous loads, both hot and mild. But what was the thought behind the .41 Magnum originally? Why did we need less than a .44 Mag, but more than a .357 Mag?
Pros: It is a powerful and accurate round, from my experience with it.
.45 Winchester Magnum
Cons: One of the original loadings, a 230-grain hardball with a muzzle velocity of some 1400 fps, must have been a joke!
Pros: Other than the .45 Win Mag being one of the original "auto-mag" cartridges, there are not many Pros that I can see. But maybe it could be improved by handloading.
Having said all this, I still like most of these cartridges that I mentioned, so my criticisms are mainly superficial. But I've honestly not had any experience with the 400 CorBon or the .45 Win Mag.
7.62x25:
Cons: I understand. It's a cartridge for some discontinued weapons which made it into the surplus market and were sold at bargain prices. But what's the big deal? There was already the .30 Luger, which fell into general disuse by the German military long ago because of its lack of "stopping power." (Gee, I really hate that term, but what are you going to do? It's descriptive!) The .30 Luger has a somewhat lower velocity than the 7.62x25, but it's still in the same category: A high-velocity .30 caliber handgun cartridge with a relatively light bullet (85-93 grains.) For my money, they are practically the same and would share the same limitations.
Pros: With suitable bullets (hollowpoints or possibly softpoints) these high-velocity .30s should give acceptable performance for self-defense.
.357 Sig:
Cons: Whoop-de-doooo! We have one more 9mm! How many so far: .38 Super, 9x21, 9x23, .356 TSW, 9mm Magnum, etc. etc.
Pros: It's just another 9mm, but with somewhat higher velocity.
400 CorBon:
Cons: When I first heard about this cartridge, I thought "WHAT? WHY do we need another 10mm, and one that shoots lighter bullets???" It was at the top of my list of soon-to-be-obsolete handgun cartridges. The only good reason for its existence, that I could gather, was so that a .45 ACP shooter could switch to a .40 caliber by merely replacing barrels. But why, oh why, would a .45 shooter want to do this? Has any .40 caliber handgun cartridge proven itself more effective than the .45 ACP?
Pros: There probably would be little or no difference in effectiveness between this round and the .40 S&W, or even some of the lighter loads of the 10mm.
.40 S&W:
Cons: This "10mm Lite" really caught on quickly with law enforcement and self-defense shooters! I attribute this, in part, to some of the horror stories (or urban legends, maybe?) which were surfacing about the 9mm's lack of effectiveness in certain more or less extreme situations. But does the .40 S&W have any real advantage over the 9mm, which it seemed to eclipse, or the .45 ACP? Time will tell, maybe, but there remains the one unarguable truth/persistent dogma: All handgun cartridges are inherently underpowered.
Pros: The .40 is a bit over four-hundreths of an inch larger than the 9mm and has a bullet which weighs up to 15 hundreths of an ounce more. It also has a somewhat higher velocity than many loadings of the .45 ACP.
.41 Magnum
Cons: To my mind, the .357 Magnum has long proved itself as one of the most effective rounds for a revolver in terms of self-defense/law-enforcement. It has been even used as a hunting cartridge. But when the .357 is not enough, there is the .44 Magnum and its numerous loads, both hot and mild. But what was the thought behind the .41 Magnum originally? Why did we need less than a .44 Mag, but more than a .357 Mag?
Pros: It is a powerful and accurate round, from my experience with it.
.45 Winchester Magnum
Cons: One of the original loadings, a 230-grain hardball with a muzzle velocity of some 1400 fps, must have been a joke!
Pros: Other than the .45 Win Mag being one of the original "auto-mag" cartridges, there are not many Pros that I can see. But maybe it could be improved by handloading.
Having said all this, I still like most of these cartridges that I mentioned, so my criticisms are mainly superficial. But I've honestly not had any experience with the 400 CorBon or the .45 Win Mag.
Last edited:
Had Coonan been able to get his 41 Magnum version into production, I'd be argueing with ya on that one too.
