10mm is superior to .357
"Pick your poison, they are very close. If using similar construction at similar velocity I am sure that .041 of an inch (or less than 1mm) is going to make a tremendous difference in "Stopping Power"."
I'm glad you wrote this because it highlights a fact that I often see missed - and missed here.*
The 10mm*isn't just .04" "wider" than the .357
It would if we were shooting staples and only measured their width then it would be a fair comparison.*
While the .40 call is only 14% "wider" than the .357, its frontal area is 44% larger. Think back to school days; 1/2 diameter squared times Pi.*
The 357 in 180 & the 10 in 220 - when loaded to Double Tap specs (loaded as God intended), they have similar penetration and SD (I show the 10mm with a higher SD - not sure how my math jibes with the others here).*
So, you'll get a hole about 40"+ deep with either hard cast. But the 10mm hole will be 44% BIGGER. An earlier poster here commented that the 10mm is a superior round for hunting, it is, cause it makes a bigger hole and weighs more. He was chastised for his methodology (too few cases to get a sound average). Perhaps his method is young, but it is correct and time will prove him right.*
I see again and again "energy" used to describe handgun power. At handgun velocities, energy is moot. All that matters is penetration x the size of the hole.
A parallel example: I often see the argument that a 9mm round that expands to .70 caliber is just as good as a .45 that expands to .98". Sure, its only .28" wider - no, it's not. In this example, the .45 has more than twice the frontal surface area. That means a 200%+ bigger hole - the ENTIRE LENGTH of the wound cavity.*
The +P crowd loves the pics of the temporary wound cavity - but in handgun velocities, the tissue is elastic and slaps back into place. The width of the bullet is what does the damage.*
To put it another way, a dime is .705" wide and a quarter is .95" wide. Assuming penetration of your chest, would you rather be pierced by a .7" piece of rebar or a .95" iron rod. There is a big big difference.*
LKilkenney succinctly points out that if you hit a bear in the noggin with eiher round, he's going down. But what about a spinal near miss? The wider bullet might clip a spinal bone that a narrower bullet misses, sending bone fragments into the spinal cord *Remember,were talking about a 44% wider bullet - I'll take a 44% better chance for a one shot stop on a spine/brain shot any day.
And what about arteries and hearts and organs - a near miss for a 357 could be a hit for the wider bullet. Not in most cases, but in some. Enough to where the 10 has the edge.*
Penetration being equal, in handgun velocities, wider is better than fast, heavier is better than fast.
There is no way I would ever choose a 357 revolver over a 10mm auto for 4 legged defense.