[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by nate45

I read your wall of text Webley and I know the point you were trying to make about hearing, etc. Regardless of that, I have a hard time letting the above slide. You warn against making absolutist statements, then go on to make one.

It is not know for certain that the .357 has more terminal effectiveness than a .45 ACP, or a .40 at all, or if it has more real world effectiveness than 9mm for that matter. In fact, anecdotal police evidence points to the 180 grain .40 S&W being every bit as effective, in fact more so than the old 125 grain .357 in the California Highway Patrol's hands. They used the 125 grain .357 from 1970-1990, they have used the .40 S&W from 1990-till today. Thats along time with a lot of shootings, autopsy and officer reports give the 180 grain .40 S&W higher marks.

You need to read my post a bit more carefully.

Originally posted by Webleymkv

If the .357 Magnum causes only a small increase in hearing damage while also having a great deal more terminal effectiveness, then the extra hearing damage is likely a worthwhile tradeoff. However, if the .357 causes a great deal more hearing damage while only having a small increase in terminal effectiveness than it is not a worthwhile tradeoff. If these attributes cannot be quantified in some way, however, then such comparisons are impossible to make.

emphasis added

To classify this as an absolutist statement is taking it out of context. These were hypothetical statements made to illustrate a larger point rather than claims on my part. Nowhere in my post did I claim that a .357 Magnum is, beyond shadow of a doubt, more effective than 9mm, .45 ACP, or any other cartridge. In fact, I went to great length to explain that there is no consensus about which cartridge is most effective.

As for this,

Originally posted by nate45

Ballistic gelatin penetration test also show that the various .357 loadings don't preform substantially different than other handgun cartridges either.

Originally posted by Webleymkv

What we do know for certain is that a .357 Magnum is capable of performance that is substantially different than that of common service cartridges like 9mm and .45 ACP.

emphasis added

That statement I will stand by. With a modern bullet like a Speer Gold Dot, the .357 Magnum is capable of substantially deeper penetration in both bare and clothed gelatin than other common service cartridges like .38 Special, 9mm, .357 Sig, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP. Here's the data from ATK (the parent company of both Speer and Federal):

http://le.atk.com/wound_ballistics/l...omparison.aspx

Likewise, older .357 Magnum loadings with semi-jacketed hollowpoint bullets were fairly well known for shedding fairly large shards of their jackets with the lead core attaining penetration depths in the 11-13" range with retained weights of 60% or more. This is unlike fragmenting semi-auto bullets because they normally fragment to a greater degree and give penetration depths in the shallower 8-10" range. Unfortunately, much of the gel test data for older loadings has been taken down from various websites and/or was published in out-of-print publications. As such, I've not yet been able to find a link which gives penetration, expansion, and weight retention for these sorts of loadings but if I do, I'll post it here.

In any case, the point is that while we cannot conclusively say that the .357 Magnum is better, worse, or equally effective to other cartridges, we can at least say that with at least some loadings it behaves very differently.

Originally posted by Dragline45

I firmly believe there is enough information out there to make somewhat of an informed decision about caliber effectiveness vs hearing loss. I personally think you are looking into it way too deeply, and I don't need endless charts, graphs, super specific studies and page upon page of data to make an informed decision. Now that's not to say I haven't done a good amount of research into each of the matters, just that I don't need a chart and a graph to make up my mind for me, I choose to do that on my own. I trust the 9mm and .45 regardless of what statistical data says on the internet. I know those rounds have significantly lower DB levels than the .357 mag, thus the potential to cause less damage. I don't need a study directly comparing cartridge effectiveness vs potential hearing loss to make the decision of what caliber to use.

Well, it's good that you don't need a chart because apparently one does not exist. I don't dispute that the 9mm and .45 are effective defensive cartridges nor that the .357 Magnum will cause hearing damage, I just question whether or not the 9mm and .45 are equally effective and will cause substantially less hearing damage than a .357 Magnum will.

There's no disputing that any round regardless of caliber has the potential to cause hearing damage.

No disagreement there.

There's no disputing higher DB levels have the potential to cause more damage form shot to shot. If you don't believe me go talk to a ENT because I have seen several.

I'm not questioning that either, I only question the proportion to which increasing dB levels correlate to hearing damage but apparently that information is unavailable.

There's no disputing the .357 magnum is significantly louder than modern 9mm or .45 etc... i.e. the potential to cause more damage from shot to shot compared to a lower pressure round.

OK, so the .357 Magnum will cause more hearing damage than a 9mm or .45, but we don't know how much more. Also, we don't really know how these cartridges compare to each other in terms of terminal effectiveness. I know how I think they compare, and you know how you think they compare, but there's nothing definitive.

Look at it this way, if one cartridge is louder, but also more effective than another, which cartridge is a better choice for self-defense? Obviously it could be argued that the quieter, less effective cartridge is the better choice so long as it's still adequately effective, but it could also be argued that the louder, more effective cartridge is the better choice because it will more likely resolve the SD situation with a smaller number of shots and thus expose the user to fewer ear-damaging gun shots.

There's enough information out there to support the 9mm or .45 as a viable choice as a self defense round.

Therefore using a 9mm or .45, which are perfectly viable options for a self defense round, yet have a significantly lower DB level than the .357 mag, can minimize the degree of hearing loss you may suffer form shot to shot. There is enough information out there to support this, period.

I've never claimed that a 9mm or .45 are not viable self-defense cartridges, only that a .357 Magnum might be better still.

Like you, I've also done a good amount of reading on the subject and drawn my own conclusions. I've come to the conclusion that, with careful load selection the .357 Magnum does have the potential to be somewhat more effective than the more common service cartridges like 9mm and .45 ACP.

I also reject the notion that every single loading of a given cartridge generates the same dB levels. I believe, instead, that the dB level charts are overly simplified in order to may them more easily understood by lay people. The .357 Magnum loading which I've chosen do not seem to be nearly as loud as other common loadings. I also notice that the loadings I think are most effective in 9mm and .45 ACP seem to be among the loudest for those cartridges. Because of this, I've doubt that the difference in dB levels between my chosen .357 Magnum loading and my chosen 9mm and .45 loadings are as great as the various handgun dB charts would suggest and thus the difference in hearing damage that they would cause is probably smaller as well.

These statements about effectiveness and hearing damage are, however, my own personal conclusions and opinions and should be taken as such. I am not an authority on such matters, though I do base my opinions on the work of people who I consider to be reputable authorities on such things, so someone looking for guidance on the subject should do his or her own research and come to his or her own conclusions as you and I have done. I guess my real issue was that you appeared to present your statements as proven facts rather than personal opinion.