9mm vs. .357 magnum-Myth Busted

[OldMarksman]

going back to the OP, yes, a .357 magnum can be expected to break concrete blocks or pumpkins or watermelons with greater drama than a 9MM Parabellum. that should sunrise no one.

[zincwarrior]

Yes but .45acp will blow the turret right off a German panther tank. Just tossing the bullet with your hand will blow the door off a car.

[44 AMP]

No military or police unit I am aware of issues revolvers for use against people.

I understand that there are still a very few in use, for special duties, however, that's not the point.

The point being missed is that neither the military nor the police have the safety of their members as the paramount object. The MISSION is the most important thing. Individual officer /soldier is important, but not THE most important thing.

This is different from my personal objective, where the defense/protection of my personal butt is the paramount goal.

Revolvers, and even barrels longer than 4" are not tactically obsolete in my personal world.

Yes but .45acp will blow the turret right off a German panther tank. Just tossing the bullet with your hand will blow the door off a car.

If the .45 was that good, I wonder why there was so much complaint about the Sherman's 75mm vs. the Panther...

(though the .45 could blow up a Tiger! I saw Tom Hanks do it, in Saving Private Ryan!! The Mustang was just window dressing!)

Seriously, while I appreciate the humor in those kind of statements, please use the smilies to show everyone it is meant as humor. People who don't know better might actually think you are being serious...

I will agree that if you are shooting a 125gr slug at ~1300fps, whether from a maxed out (+p+) 9mm, or from an underloaded (mid range load) .357 Magnum, you are going to get similar performance.

Another point to consider, not every 9mm pistol will handle the hot +p+. If you have one, fine. But if you don't, then what? What use is a hot ammo loading, if you don't have a gun that can shoot it, and not break??

Everything chambered in .357 Magnum will handle the mid-range loads (1300fps) and some will handle a lot more.

The 9mm Luger round, in some loadings, and certain guns made for that are very, very good at what they do. Other 9mm loads and guns, not as much.

Not seeing anyone touting the original 9mm loading (124gr FMJ @ 1050fps from a 4" Luger).

[chadio]

Last 10 or 20 or so times I went target shooting, the target wasn't shooting back... and I am thankful and count my blessings. 9 was just fine.

[mavracer]

A sonic boom, which is caused by something moving through a gas at a velocity exceeding the speed of sound, is a pressure wave, not static pressure.

That's neither hydrodynamics or hydrostatics that's aerodynamics.
And just for the record without static pressure you wont hear a sonic boom.

[mavracer]

going back to the OP, yes, a .357 magnum can be expected to break concrete blocks or pumpkins or watermelons or a human heart or lungs or femur or ribs with greater drama than a 9MM Parabellum. that should surprise no one.

Red added and fixed spelling of surprise

[MandolinMan]

The concept of hydrostatic shock has been a recurring topic here lately. Perhaps it deserves a separate thread.

[OldMarksman]

The concept of hydrostatic shock has been a recurring topic here lately. Perhaps it deserves a separate thread.

Since there is no such thing, I cannot see the point. But on second thought....

There are two kinds of pressure in fluids: static pressure and dynamic pressure. Shock, in terms of fluids, is a phenomenon that relates to a pressure wave, which involves dynamic pressure.

Dynamic pressure involves a wave that is propagated by a disturbance, That disturbance is caused by relative motion---such as the speed of an aircraft or other body in flight, or an explosion causing the rapid movement of the fluid. The wave imparts energy to whatever it impinges, and sufficient energy can cause destruction.

That is what people refer to when they use the incorrect term "hydrostatic shock".

Technically, the term hydrostatic involves a fluid, whether compressible or incompressible, that is at rest (i.e., not moving, relative to the object on which pressure impinges). Examples include barometric pressure, fluid pressure on a submerged vessel, boiler pressure, or the pressure in your propane tank. We wouldn't use that term to describe the effects of a projectile.

In my day, we learned all of this in high school or college physics, and some of us went into more depth in the study of fluids in engineering school.

The fact that the term that people often use is an oxymoron does not mean that the phenomenon to which they refer is not real, however .

Destruction of body tissue caused by dynamic pressure waves was first studied in depth during WWII. A trauma surgeon named Chamberlain observed that tissue was damaged by the effects of very high velocity bullets that had not contacted that part of the tissue. By the way, Chamberlain and his colleagues did not use the term "hydrostatic shock".

That term came into being later, in the writings of Jack O'Connor, Roy Weatherby, and others. I once had some of Jack's earliest writings on the subject. Jack was a hunter, and a writer. He had been an English teacher, and he became a professor of journalism.

Someone mused earlier that he thought that "hydrostatic shock" is an "unproved theory".

Not so.

There's more to it than the fact that self-contadictory terms have been used to describe it, however. The dynamic pressure wave requires velocity that one does not encounter with most handgun bullets. Thus, when Dr. Marvin Fackler claimed that there was no such damage from projectiles, he was basing his conclusion on observations involving velocity ranges in which it did not exist. Add enough velocity, and you will certainly see it.

It was certainly evident when a bullet from Jack O'Connor's beloved .270 Winchester rifle hit its target.

Off the original topic, but since it was requested...I hope this helps.

Anyone desiring to put this into a separate thread is free to use it.

[Bluecthomas]

A 40gr 22 fired from a same length barrel as your 55gr 223, at much different velocities, produces radically different effects on targets such as water bottles and even the self healing ground targets.
Velocity really matters.
Stupid person math, mass x velocity = force
Smarter person math also includes the distance/time to decelerate.

Ammo selection also matters. Hot and hollow gonna do more than cheap round nose range ammo.

9mm offers advantages. Price per round is a big one. Quicker reloads, or higher capacity per load, of yout gun via switching mags is more about the gun type than caliber.
357, finger hole in front, golf ball in back.



45 will never be dead. Many of the newest designs in ammo are available in 45 too.

And a sharp stick can still kill too. Or a club.
That's what most these comparison tests "proving" anything forget.

Short of Capt kirks phaser, with settings ranging from stung to vaporize, no gun will ever be obsolete.
But even on the bridge of the Enterprise, with Dr crusher standing by, 2 in the head from grandpa's WWII 1911 still gonna be lethal.

[5whiskey]

... I love this forum but we do silly things here sometimes


*Like for real actually trying to compare 9mm vs .357 and imply that there is no real world difference between the two round for round

*And while I'm at it trying to say that this very unscientific video proves much of anything. Shooting at cinder blocks with two different calibers implies nothing, shot placement will mean more to the ease of destruction than the raw energy imparted by the rounds since both rounds will pass through the cinder block and not expend all of it's energy in the testing medium

[44 AMP]

9mm offers advantages. Price per round is a big one.

Ok, I just gotta hit on this one, because one hears it so often.

9mm is cheaper. Yep, absolutely, 9mm FMJ ammo is cheaper. Now go price some of the +P+ stuff that the claims are being made about.

Not exactly bargain ammo there!

One of the big problems with the 9mm is people's perceptions, and lack of understanding the information given. They hear the "myth" about 9mm being as good as .357, and go out and buy a box of ball ammo (because it's cheapest), and THINK they got something as good as .357 Magnum.

One sees the same thing with the .223 for home defense. People claim (and rightly so) that .223 soft points/hollowpoints penetrate walls less than the usual pistol rounds. But what too many people don't hear is "softpoints" they go out and buy FMJ thinking it's all the same, and it isn't.

Some 9mm loads are cheaper than others, some 9mm loads are cheaper than other calibers. Are they enough cheaper so that it really matters?? Not to me, but then, I handload.

[shurshot]

44AMP, VERY good point! Cost. Premium high velocity SD ammo is tested and discussed, then the newbie or price conscious (including some who should know better), buy the cheap target grade ammo. Sometimes the lowest price isn't the best Value, especially when it comes to hunting or self defense ammunition.

[mavracer]

Destruction of body tissue caused by dynamic pressure waves was first studied in depth during WWII. A trauma surgeon named Chamberlain observed that tissue was damaged by the effects of very high velocity bullets that had not contacted that part of the tissue. By the way, Chamberlain and his colleagues did not use the term "hydrostatic shock".

That's good because that's not "Hydrostatic shock" that would be temporary cavity and that would be under hydrodynamics.
Hydrostatic shock is remote trauma away from the bullets path. IE brain function being affected by a bullet in the thoratic cavity.

[mavracer]

One of the big problems with the 9mm is people's perceptions, and lack of understanding the information given. They hear the "myth" about 9mm being as good as .357, and go out and buy a box of ball ammo (because it's cheapest), and THINK they got something as good as .357 Magnum.

Another side note on that is the folks that shoot 115gr Winchester white box in their 9mm at the range, then go home and put +p+ JHPs, but compare the blast and flash amd recoil of white box to full house 357s.

[hdwhit]

Rangerrich99 wrote:
I've been hearing about how 9mm is just as effective a round as .357 magnum, at the range, ... And when I say 'effective,' I mean energy delivered to target and damage created by bullets.

Well, at the range, both cartridges deliver more than enough energy downrange to punch holes in the targets and the "damage" to the target looks like a ragged edge round hole in both cases. So, yes, I would have to say that at the range, the 9mm and 357 magnum are equally effective in putting 9mm diameter round holes in paper.

Whether any of that has any relevance to the world outside the range is entirely dependent upon the circumstances under which the particular cartridge and associated gun are to be used.

[Rangerrich99]

Originally Posted by hdwhit

Well, at the range, both cartridges deliver more than enough energy downrange to punch holes in the targets and the "damage" to the target looks like a ragged edge round hole in both cases. So, yes, I would have to say that at the range, the 9mm and 357 magnum are equally effective in putting 9mm diameter round holes in paper.

Whether any of that has any relevance to the world outside the range is entirely dependent upon the circumstances under which the particular cartridge and associated gun are to be used.

Sorry, maybe I didn't write that bit well enough. I wasn't implying that 'at the range,' both cartridges performed the same. What I meant was that I've heard this myth while I was at a range, of the 9mm performing as well as .357 magnum in terms of energy delivered. Not how the rounds performed at the range.

Not that it matters, as this thread has apparently gone pretty far afield from my OP. But some of it has been interesting anyway, so maybe it's not all to the bad.

Oh, and .357 magnum SWCs fired from any .357 magnum I've ever fired leave perfectly cut circles in target paper, not ragged holes.

[OldMarksman]

The 9mm Luger round, in some loadings, and certain guns made for that are very, very good at what they do. Other 9mm loads and guns, not as much.

That is most certainly true.

Any one of them involves compromises.

Not too long ago there was an article discussing the idea that a .380ACP might be a better choice than a "micro 9MM". I had a light weight compact 9 that was not easy to fire rapidly with control. I now carry a double column 9 that I do like--for concealed carry.

But I would not choose it for some things. I have a good seven shot stainless steel .357 Magnum revolver with a five inch barrel that I would much prefer to carry in some circumstances if I were still able to get around in the outdoors. But I do not hunt with a handgun.

Everything chambered in .357 Magnum will handle the mid-range loads (1300fps) and some will handle a lot more.

Yes, but...some who are enamored with the idea of the .357 Magnum cartridge choose revolvers that are so small and light that they cannot shoot them rapidly in controlled fire, and they rarely take them to the range a second time with full Magnum loads.

The choice of firearm is at least every bit as important as the chambering.

[zincwarrior]

Originally Posted by hdwhit

Well, at the range, both cartridges deliver more than enough energy downrange to punch holes in the targets and the "damage" to the target looks like a ragged edge round hole in both cases. So, yes, I would have to say that at the range, the 9mm and 357 magnum are equally effective in putting 9mm diameter round holes in paper.

Whether any of that has any relevance to the world outside the range is entirely dependent upon the circumstances under which the particular cartridge and associated gun are to be used.

9mm has been used by the FBI and a whole slew of police units, plus the US Marine Corps. It meets FBI criteria.

.357 magnum does as well.

But we should be careful here. A .357 has more energy on average, yes? but the next step, arguing .357 is superior, implies 9mm is inferior. Following that logic then the argument can naturally be made that .50 caliber is better and therefore the .357 is inferior. If one is going to ONLY use the factor of power as measured by weight and velocity, clearly all persons must use a .50. But again, thats ignoring all the other important factors.

The other, probably much more important issue is that its kind of irrelevant. The vast majority of people choose the semi-auto platform. The .357 magnum is not widely available in the semi-auto platform. Inversely, with limited exception, the 9mm is not a revolver cartridge.

So the .357 guys should go back to picking fights with .38 special shooters and avoiding the manly men that have .454 Casulls. The 9mm dudes and dudettes should focus their attention on the multiple "discussions" about which is better: 9mm or .40 cal.

Me, I'll continue to carry a pocket full of .45 ACPs, in case I am attacked by a bunch of car doors.

[Rangerrich99]

Originally Posted by zincwarrior

9mm has been used by the FBI and a whole slew of police units, plus the US Marine Corps. It meets FBI criteria.

.357 magnum does as well.

But we should be careful here. A .357 has more energy on average, yes? but the next step, arguing .357 is superior, implies 9mm is inferior. Following that logic then the argument can naturally be made that .50 caliber is better and therefore the .357 is inferior. If one is going to ONLY use the factor of power as measured by weight and velocity, clearly all persons must use a .50. But again, thats ignoring all the other important factors.

The other, probably much more important issue is that its kind of irrelevant. The vast majority of people choose the semi-auto platform. The .357 magnum is not widely available in the semi-auto platform. Inversely, with limited exception, the 9mm is not a revolver cartridge.

So the .357 guys should go back to picking fights with .38 special shooters and avoiding the manly men that have .454 Casulls. The 9mm dudes and dudettes should focus their attention on the multiple "discussions" about which is better: 9mm or .40 cal.

Me, I'll continue to carry a pocket full of .45 ACPs, in case I am attacked by a bunch of car doors.

First, I agree with all of your points. The issue I have with it is that Mr. Harrell never states that the .357 magnum is 'superior' to the 9mm, and neither do I. I still wonder if anyone is actually watching the whole video with the sound on.

The only question being answered is whether the 9mm does in fact perform as well as a .357 magnum on a variety of testing media, some of which are purely for dramatic effect, as he so states.

He never says, "everyone should be carrying a .357 magnum," or anything remotely close to that. He simply attempts to refute the idea that a premium self-defense 9mm +P cartridge can perform on an equal level as a target quality .357 magnum round. And as far as I can tell, he accomplishes his goal. YMMV.

[UncleEd]

Zincwarrior
and Rangerrich,

You both should be banned from this thread

If you two are going to make sense, there's no
place for you here.

Beat it, both of you.

[zincwarrior]

You have to define performance.
Again, what does perform mean? The recoil from a .357 is substantially higher. The effectiveness of a .357 on a human target is subject for debate (as has been had).

Neither were designed for the mediums presented. They were designed for human (9mm and .357) and game (.357).

If the definition of performance is penetration: .357 wins. if the definition is meeting FBI minimums with the lowest recoil, 9mm wins. If the definition is, can this stop a Tiger Tank in a Steven Spielberg movie, then .45 ACP wins

[zincwarrior]

Originally Posted by UncleEd

Zincwarrior
and Rangerrich,

You both should be banned from this thread

If you two are going to make sense, there's no
place for you here.

Beat it, both of you.

You know we really haven't explored the most important factor, which one makes me look coolor while I spout awesome one liners...

EDIT: To really throw a monkey wrench in, if all were in revolvers which would be better, .357 mag, 38 special, or 9mm? Let the caliber wars continue!*

* If it were me, I'd pick .357 for revolver, and 9mm for auto, because I'd carry the 357 with as hot as possible rounds for hiking, and carry the 9mm for self defense in semi-auto.

[Rangerrich99]

Originally Posted by UncleEd

Zincwarrior
and Rangerrich,

You both should be banned from this thread

If you two are going to make sense, there's no
place for you here.

Beat it, both of you.

Hahaha, thanks, I needed that.

[shurshot]

In the 70's, the gun rags had articles and men in gun shops debated on which was better, pertaining to "stopping power", a.45 ACP 1911A1 or a 4" double action .357 Magnum revolver. In the 80's, the topic was upgraded to 9MM pistol VS. .357 revolver. Then it was the "high capacity" wondernine 9MM VS. .45 ACP "stopping power" in a Sig 220 or Colt 1911A1 in the late 80's. Then in the early to mid 90's... 9MM VS. .40 SW in polymer framed weapons. Funny thing is, if old Wild Bill was still alive he would laugh at all of us, after his numerous successful gunfights, many of which he was armed with only a brace of .36 caliber cap 'n ball 1851 Colts, which are pretty primitive and weak compared to the powerful modern handguns we debate so strongly about today. My point is, we have it pretty good with our modern arms and ammunition, be it a 9MM, or .45 ACP pistol, or a .357 revolver. I think Wild Bill would consider us all well armed and accuse us of cackeling like a bunch of old hens.

[481]

Originally Posted by mavracer

That's neither hydrodynamics or hydrostatics that's aerodynamics.

Incorrect. Actually hydrodynamics and hydrostatics are part of the same continuum mechanics branch (namely, fluid dynamics) as aerodynamics is. They are not separable.