short trunked elephant in the room

[fastbolt]

I carry a S&W M&P 40c, and I am aware that the .40 s&w is less effective from my short barrel ...

You might bear in mind that the .40 S&W was developed around a 4" barrel using 180gr bullet weight.

I also have a M&P 40c (and a 4013TSW, G27 & 4040PD), all of which have approx 3.5" barrels (the G27 is actually 3.46"). I don't lose any sleep worrying about any loss of velocity going from a 4" to a 3.5" barrel in that caliber.

Yes, velocity can be an important part of the equation when it comes to considering the general subject of "terminal ballistics". I don't, however, adhere to the "velocity is everything" idea (for duty/defensive handgun ammunition) that was popularized in the 80's. Yes, no & maybe.

On the other hand, bullet construction (and the velocity window involved in any particular design) plays an important part, too. I give it a bit more attention than sheer velocity nowadays. The engineers have been getting some experience at tweaking bullet designs and loads to satisfy the specifications put forth by their LE/Gov customers (and the handgun hunting part of the market has received some attention, too).

They've also recognized the popularity of smaller pistols & revolvers, with the attendant shorter barrel lengths, when it comes to plainclothes & off-duty LE weapons, so some of the big names have been refining their defensive ammunition with that in mind, it seems.

I'm much more concerned with placement, myself.

Just my thoughts.

 

[oldbear]

So I should just nod and tell my friend that I like my brontosaurus burger medium rare.

No tell your friend that any of the three different calibers should be effective for S/D. As for barrel Length, normally you will lose 50 FPS for every inch of barrel reduction, so an projectile traveling at 1,400 FPS per second from a 6” tube should leave a 4” tube at 1,300 FPS, a 3” tube at 1,250 FPS, and last but not least a 2” tube at 1,200 FPS. Hope this helps

 

[grendelbane]

Nothing bad happened to my SP101, a co-worker wanted it more than I did, and I wanted his money to finance another acquisition. As far as I know, his wife still packs it, loaded with .38 +ps.

I just find it odd that some people think that a 9mm can out-perform it. I am sure that there are occasional occurrences of this happening, but I doubt it happens with any great frequency.

I am talking strictly about comparing velocities with similar bullet weights, not any thing else.

I did win a drag race shooting a 9mm against a 4" Python one time, but I cheated, it was a 9x23mm Winchester. Even then, it was a razor thin victory. A win, is however, a win.

 

[K1500]

It is not that a 9mm can outperform a .357 (occasionally it can), it is that they are so much closer than most folks give them credit for. The dichotomy is usually in terms of power (.357) vs capacity (9mm).

If folks would realize a 9mm has nearly the same velocity as a snubby .357, the .357 loses one of it's key attributes. This is coming from a fan of the .357 who owns a 3" S&W M60.

 

[wanderinwalker]

It is not that a 9mm can outperform a .357 (occasionally it can), it is that they are so much closer than most folks give them credit for. The dichotomy is usually in terms of power (.357) vs capacity (9mm).

If folks would realize a 9mm has nearly the same velocity as a snubby .357, the .357 loses one of it's key attributes. This is coming from a fan of the .357 who owns a 3" S&W M60.

They're so close, but it really varies by bullet weight, firearm and even individual lots of ammunition and the chronograph used.

My two favorite cartridges are the 9x19mm and the .38/357 (I know, technically 3, but I lump the revolver cartridges together because I don't own any straight .38s yet). Winchester's Ranger SXT in 127gr +P+ 9mm is probably good for it's advertised 1270 fps in my Glock 17. Certainly feels like it should be going that fast. Remington's 125gr Golden Saber .357 will do about the same in a 4" service-sized revolver. Close enough that it doesn't matter.

BUT, even a short .357 will throw 140-160gr bullets harder than a service-sized 9mm will throw 147s. If your poison is heavy bullets, the advantage goes to the wheelgun. I've clocked 158s out of my 4" S&W Model 19 at 1200-fps, I think it was Independence factory loads. I even ran some reloads with 2400 at close to that spec, but only one box worth, before I backed off to something in the 1100-fps range. From the chronograph results I've read, even a 3" .357 will still do 1100-fps with some 158gr factory loads. As big of a 9mm fan as I am, I cannot say it's even close to that performance envelope.

However, I have noted in chronographing ammo between my Glock 26 and 17, the 9mm doesn't seem to give up much going to shorter barrels. The two loads I have data for at my finger-tips indicate a 60-fps loss going from 4.5" to 3.5" with 115gr bullets. I have no idea why I didn't chronograph the 124gr ammo through both pistols that day. I also had a Kel-Tec PF-9 for a while with a 3.1" barrel, and I recall Winchester White Box 115gr FMJ would go 1200-fps from the G-17 and treaded close to 1100 in the PF-9.

The point I will concede readily is the 9mm semi-auto is a lot easier on most shooters than the .357s are. I've had other shooters my age (I'm under 30) and younger ask me if my ".357 kicks." I don't think it's really bad, but I'm not lining up to shoot any of the Scandium M&Ps either.

 

[K1500]

Yes, the .357 will always have the advantage with heavy projectiles. In addition, as the barrel lengthens, the magnum will win out.