Anything .45 colt can do that .357 can't?

[tomrkba]

I am not sure 357 Magnum cannot go as slow as 700 FPS.

[Scorch]

I am under the impression that the calculations used to come up with foot-pounds was discredited years ago as being biased in favor of velocity while discounting bullet weight.

The ft-lbs of kinetic energy calculation is a standard engineering formula, and as such just calculates the kinetic energy of the projectile. Nothing, absolutely nothing, tells you how effective it will be in killing an animal, 2-legged or 4-legged. There have been various formulas proposed over the years that tried to account for bullet weight and frontal area (Taylor Knock-Out or TKO comes readily to mind), but the industry had to decide on ONE measure of a cartridge's effectiveness and they chose kinetic energy. That doesn't mean that a 223 kills as well as a 44 mag because it has similar kinetic energy, it's just something standardized that folks within the firearms industry agreed to use. But ultimately it comes down to how well the bullet kills, and while empirical evidence may not be repeatable and formulaic it does tell what works. So, typically, bigger bullets kill better.

[Radny97]

Originally Posted by Scorch

The ft-lbs of kinetic energy calculation is a standard engineering formula, and as such just calculates the kinetic energy of the projectile. Nothing, absolutely nothing, tells you how effective it will be in killing an animal, 2-legged or 4-legged. There have been various formulas proposed over the years that tried to account for bullet weight and frontal area (Taylor Knock-Out or TKO comes readily to mind), but the industry had to decide on ONE measure of a cartridge's effectiveness and they chose kinetic energy. That doesn't mean that a 223 kills as well as a 44 mag because it has similar kinetic energy, it's just something standardized that folks within the firearms industry agreed to use. But ultimately it comes down to how well the bullet kills, and while empirical evidence may not be repeatable and formulaic it does tell what works. So, typically, bigger bullets kill better.

There’s a bunch incorrect here.
First, kinetic energy is a good measure of how hard a bullet strikes a hard surface, like steel. I have shot a lot of plates in competition, including swingers, and there’s some wives tales out there about how momentum and heavy bullets work better on steel. No, they don’t. The best predictor of whether a plate will fall is kinetic energy. A 223 round with 1000 ft/lbs knocks a plate down just as hard as a 44 mag with 1000 ft/lbs. The physics is the same.

It’s when you get to soft surfaces that kinetic energy doesn’t tell you everything. In that case, bullet construction and sectional density also matter. The bullet has to stay together and also have some sort of repeatable timed release of its energy (ie reliable expansion, but not breaking apart, or a flat meplat cutting a large hole). Kinetic energy doesn’t tell you how the bullet will release its energy, it only tells you how much energy the bullet has on impact.

So when someone says 223 doesn’t kill as well as 44 mag, that’s not really accurate. A well built 223 bullet is plenty deadly, as is a well built 44 mag.
Conversely, 223 55 gr fmj will kill just as badly as a LRN 200 gr 44 mag. One will tumble, break apart, tear up organs and not penetrate very well. The other will cut a clean small hole all the way through without dumping much energy in the target.

Getting back to 357 mag and 45 Colt, in order for a 357 to approach the kinetic energy of a 45 Colt, the bullet typically has to be going a lot faster to make up for the lower mass. Small light fast bullets that still have a .357 diameter are not going to have the tough construction and sectional density of the 45 Colt. Thus, 45 tends to perform better on soft targets.
However, if you were to shoot steel plates with 357 mag and 45 Colt, each having the same kinetic energy, the knock down effect on the plates would be identical.

I hope that clarifies things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nanuk]

Small light fast bullets that still have a .357 diameter are not going to have the tough construction and sectional density of the 45 Colt. Thus, 45 tends to perform better on soft targets.

As you can see by the attached chart the SD between the two is so close as to be a moot point. Bullet construction varies by manufacturer and intended purpose so is really a moot point as well.

As to performance of "soft" targets that depends on what role you are asking it to perform and how well you can place your shot. Bullet construction is critical here as well. For example the 125 grn 357 mag JHP @ 1400 fps is more effective against humans than the 225 grn 45 Colt @ 850 - 900 fps. The 45 Colt would be my choice for buffalo when comparing the same two bullets, but we don't have to, we can match the bullet and load to the task.

https://www.chuckhawks.com/sd_handgun.htm

However, if you were to shoot steel plates with 357 mag and 45 Colt, each having the same kinetic energy, the knock down effect on the plates would be identical.

Exactly

[rclark]

I am not sure 357 Magnum cannot go as slow as 700 FPS.

Not sure with the not and not here, what you really meant to say ... But, In any revolver you can go as slow as you want. Of course, there will come a point where the bullet sticks in the barrel... That's too slow . Shoot, when firelapping we want the bullet to just 'clear the barrel' slow. Light load of trailboss works fine for this application.

[Radny97]

Originally Posted by Nanuk

As you can see by the attached chart the SD between the two is so close as to be a moot point. Bullet construction varies by manufacturer and intended purpose so is really a moot point as well.

As to performance of "soft" targets that depends on what role you are asking it to perform and how well you can place your shot. Bullet construction is critical here as well. For example the 125 grn 357 mag JHP @ 1400 fps is more effective against humans than the 225 grn 45 Colt @ 850 - 900 fps. The 45 Colt would be my choice for buffalo when comparing the same two bullets, but we don't have to, we can match the bullet and load to the task.

https://www.chuckhawks.com/sd_handgun.htm



Exactly

Good points


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pathfinder45]

...if they actually did have the same kinetic energy. But with completely different bullet weights, they never will. No matter how fast you drive a bullet of say, 150 grains, it can never be equal in energy to one weighing 250 or 300 grains. A bullet weighing twice as much at half the velocity might be comparable, yet never equal. To illustrate, consider Newton's Cradle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cradle

[44 AMP]

No matter how fast you drive a bullet of say, 150 grains, it can never be equal in energy to one weighing 250 or 300 grains.

I'm sorry, but this is simply not true.

Any lighter bullet can equal the energy of a heavier one, and vice versa when the rest of the story is considered. Energy is a calculated number, using the variables of mass and velocity(squared). Plug in the numbers and the resulting number can be equal. That's just a fact, and no getting around it.

HOWEVER, that resulting number does not directly tell you much, other than as a comparison to the energy number from a different combination as a relative value.

Obviously, 600 is twice as much as 300, 1200 is twice as much as 600 etc., but that does not mean the real world effect will be twice as much. Many, MANY other variables are involved in that, which are not accounted for in a straight energy computation formula.

Consider this, a 55gr .224" bullet fired from a .22-250 and a 400gr .458 bullet fired from a .45-70 can be loaded to identical ft/lbs of energy.

IDENTICAL

Obviously the velocities will be quite different, but the energy number can be identical.

IF energy were all that mattered, or even if it were the prime factor then there should be little or no difference in the real world effect of both of them, right?

But, there is a difference. And its a difference not shown by JUST the energy calculation. There's a LOT more to it than just the on paper energy figures.

I own both, and I know which one I would choose to shoot a buffalo, or an angry bear....

I hold to the opinion in my signature line, and nothing in over 60 years of my
observations has yet disproven it.

[Pathfinder45]

But, there is a difference. And its a difference not shown by JUST the energy calculation. There's a LOT more to it than just the on paper energy figures.

I own both, and I know which one I would choose to shoot a buffalo, or an angry bear....

This is what I'm getting at. You can probably fiddle with mathematical equations to get similar numbers of foot-pounds from perhaps a 22-250 versus a 45-70 and show that they have identical energy. And yet, just like Newton's Cradle clearly shows, it's not really equal, even if the foot-pounds calculations think so. Perhaps I should have used a different word than, "energy", such as power or some other word that might have been more appropriate.
If the balls on Newton's Cradle each weigh 150 grains, no matter how fast you drive one ball, it's never equal to two balls, even if you can get the foot/pounds calculation to say so.

[Centurion]

Totally agree with 44AMP. Kinetic energy is just a part of any consideration as much as momentum (inertia) and the bullet form (and material) could be. And all of them perform very different when moving thru air than thru flesh or a combination of bones and flesh. We aren't baloons full of gases but more likely water jugs (full of fluids inside by the way).

[Pathfinder45]

Another thought just occurred to me.... I'm no mathematician, but I was just wondering, now... suppose we take the afore-mentioned 22-250 and 45-70, loaded to the same foot/pounds energy, and adjust the weights of the two rifles to be equal....does that mean they would have the same recoil? Really? Why do I doubt this? Are all foot/pounds not equal and the two rifles are they not equally powerful? Or is there some inherent flaw in the whole premise of the equation?
I could be wrong, but I'm thinking that until the 45 Colt was severely down-loaded for those cowboy games, it was always more gun than the 357; slower but more of a sledge-hammer.

[Centurion]

Because at recoil is force (not energy) which you should consider.

[Reloadron]

Because at recoil is force (not energy) which you should consider.

Then why does just about everything written about recoil refer to Free Recoil Energy?

Free recoil is a vernacular term or jargon for recoil energy of a firearm not supported from behind. Free recoil denotes the translational kinetic energy (Et) imparted to the shooter of a small arm when discharged and is expressed in joules (J), or foot-pound force (ft·lbf) for non-SI units of measure.

This includes the SAAMI papers on the subject and also goes along with Hatcher's Notebook on the subject.

Ron

[Centurion]

Recoil is explained by the law of conservation of momentum, and so it is easier to discuss it separately from energy. The nature of the recoil process is determined by the force of the expanding gases in the barrel upon the gun (recoil force), which is equal and opposite to the force upon the ejecta.

[stinkeypete]

Recoil is explained by momentum, but also by the shape of the momentum vs. time curve, and the interface between firearm and human.

From the same gun, same mass and same momentum, the bullet that accelerates quickly (fast powder) will feel “snappier” to shoot than using slow powder.

For .45 (255 grain) and .38 (158) grain with the same momentum, the .45 will fell “pushy” to shoot and the .38 (or .357, same thing, right?) will feel snappier.

Pushing a bullet supersonic results in a loud “crack”, quite sharp to the ear. High frequency stuff. Report. Sounds, big enough a difference to me to matter.

When considering momentum, a football player exerts a huge amount of momentum on an opponent but slowly over large area. Much munch more than a bullet.

Science is great, really. Physics starts with the basics, then one adds detail after detail to that framework to proved closer and closer models of the observed world.

There isn’t a simple formula for what we feel in our hand, although it can be modeled.

.45 is boomy pushy, .357 is snappy cracky. That’s not me being silly, that’s an attempt to describe a comparison of many complex details.

Very fast velocity bullets can provide lethal damage by a different mechanism than bone-breaking momentum... “splattering” tissue, causing liquid shock damage and blood pressure spikes.

It’s true that some game has such heavy bone that a low momentum bullet can ricochet off a skull doing only superficial damage. Don’t shoot a Cape buffalo with a .223. A .44 magnum, with correct bullet, is a possible choice.

A shotgun does damage over a large area with little penetration.. animals drop. so you see, it’s complicated.

Ps. If you have a Cape buffalo around, run away!

[Pathfinder45]

Recoil is best explained by experiencing it.

[Centurion]

Agree with you.

[44 AMP]

Have some buffalo a couple miles down the road, I'll watch for capes and especially one in red and blue tights with a large "S" on their chest...are the kryptonite bullets still on backorder???...


Recoil is another of those things that comes in many parts. Energy, mass, inertia, acceleration/time and then gets further complex by gun design.

And then there's the non-math part, FELT recoil. Which is entirely subjective and can be different for every different shooter.

A .22-250 and a .45-70 can have the exact same amount of energy (ft/lbs) but they sure don't FEEL the same against my shoulder.

Another example, is .45acp and 9mm Luger, in their GI ball configuration. They both have almost exactly the same amount of ft/lb energy (365ft/lbs or so) and you can fire each in the same gun, such as a 1911A1 pattern pistol, or a T/C Contender, doesn't matter, same amount of force pushing "back" but the feel is different. 9mm feels "sharper" or "snappier".

[Pathfinder45]

Simple minded souls, such as myself, get skeptical of mathematical equations when observed phenomena don't seem to contradict the math. Split a couple of cords of firewood from sizable logs and you will soon know that an axe is no match for an honest splitting maul, no matter how much faster you can swing it.

[stinkeypete]

Pathfinder, simple math can’t explain complex real world things. Complicated math can. Sort of like saying a car is made of steel.. well, you need a lot more words in that formula.

[HighValleyRanch]

Split a couple of cords of firewood from sizable logs and you will soon know that an axe is no match for an honest splitting maul, no matter how much faster you can swing it.

I didn't have a hydraulic splitter this year, so I hand split 2 cords of wood for my winter warmth. I quickly traded my axe for a maul, learning that heavier mass overcomes higher speed!LOL

[Mike Irwin]

"Recoil is best explained by experiencing it. "

I've been fortunate, or unfortunate, enough to fire some true beast rifles of the African game variety, things like .470 Nitro and .505 Gibbs.

Recoil for those was punishing, but the guns were heavy and it was more a resolute shove than anything.

Some of the worst recoil I've ever experienced from a pain standpoint was a 12 gauge slug out of an Ithaca Featherlight 12 gauge and a FAR too light carbine in .338 Winchester magnum.

The Ithaca was quite painful, the .338 was horrendous.

[Reloadron]

Well that pretty much concludes recoil.

One of my rifles I am pretty fond of is my Ruger Model 77 in 7mm Remington Magnum and I haven't shot it in 5 years or more. It simply hurts to shoot it and my shoulder is not what it was a few decades ago. Anyway things have moved from the .357 Remington Magnum verse the .45 Colt. Lions and tigers and bears.

Buy both and you won't have to worry about what one can do that the other can't.

Ron

[jackmoser65]

Is this a serious question? Like comparing the 22 long rifle to the 30-06.

[Pathfinder45]

Not nearly that extreme.