March 28, 2017, 02:27 PM | #51 | |
Junior member
Join Date: July 26, 2001
Location: midwest
Posts: 2,374
|
Quote:
|
|
March 29, 2017, 07:32 AM | #52 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 28, 2017
Posts: 272
|
Not to pick on the .357 but comparing overall lengths, a new 4" Model 66 is still over an inch longer than a 5" M&P .40. So the most equal comparison may be a 5" auto to a 3" revolver.
The .357 can do great things but a longer barrel is almost a prerequisite. |
March 29, 2017, 09:35 AM | #53 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 9, 2014
Posts: 645
|
There's only one way to settle this. I shoot you with my 10mm and then you get your turn with your 357. Or I can start with the 357, either way I bet the argument would end without you "speaking your piece".
|
March 29, 2017, 12:31 PM | #54 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 18, 2009
Posts: 1,321
|
Quote:
One might think it overpenetrative, not so in this test: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFUAmIgR918
__________________
Strive to carry the handgun you would want anywhere, everywhere; forget that good area bullcrap. "Wouldn't want to / Nobody volunteer to" get shot by _____ is not indicative of quickly incapacitating. |
|
March 29, 2017, 07:39 PM | #55 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 30, 2007
Posts: 761
|
.357 Mag or 10 mm = Big Boom = Happy jad0110
This one is real simple. I like both. That said, I don't own any 10mms. I have .357s and .44s, so I feel pretty well covered. Plus, for me the 10mm is a reloaders round and I appreciate the fact that my .357 and .44 wheel guns don't puke brass everywhere . As for power, depends on what ammo from what companies etc etc. Last time I looked a few years ago, Buffalo Bore loaded either to within a sneeze of each other, with perhaps a tiny edge to the .357 in their case. I wouldn't want to be on the business end of either. |
March 30, 2017, 08:05 AM | #56 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 28, 2006
Posts: 4,341
|
Quote:
The 10mm was designed to be a tad more powerful than the .357. Cooper loved his 1911s and desired a pistol caliber that would effectively reach out past 50 yards and he was successful. If one restricts themselves to auto-loaders it is a very viable option for a handgun with magnum caliber ballistics. Problem for me with the 10mm was and still is, iut's like the .41 mag. It's just another "in-betweener". It's in between .357 and .44 mag for me and just not worth having. For any autoloading handgun application I need, my standard 1911s handle that quite nicely. That does not mean it's not a viable option to others, just that one needs to look at the caliber realistically and compare apples to apples. |
|
March 30, 2017, 08:08 AM | #57 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 2,192
|
I don't like the comparison of the 10MM to the .41 Mag. Yes the hottest 10MM rounds are somewhere near the weakest .41 Mag rounds. However the .357 and 10MM line up pretty well from top to bottom when it is all said and done.
|
March 30, 2017, 09:12 AM | #58 | |
Junior member
Join Date: July 26, 2001
Location: midwest
Posts: 2,374
|
Quote:
Not only well-said, but it illustrates why all these comparative "revolver cartridge vs. semi-auto cartridge" debates are, typically, meaningless. They're almost always asymmetrical because accurate barrel-lengths - as between the wheelgun and the autoloader - are never noted or factored-in. Regardless of the barrel-cylinder gap, magnum revolvers of all stripes quickly surrender significant velocity and energy when their barrels shrink under 4", especially when you're talking about real-world guns that people actually EDC or hike with into the boonies and mountains. Not 6" barreled target guns, nor even Dirty Harry's 6" Model 29. That's why Ruger and S&W both make 2.5" and 3" magnum handcannons: not for power, but for ease of portability. A .44, .454, or 500S&W is already heavy enough just to safely handle the cartridge's power. Saddling it with a 5", 6", or 7" tube turns it in to a boat-anchor that quickly comes off the hip and gets stuffed inside a backpack, where it's rendered useless for its intended purpose. One exception to this asymmetry, at least where the ".357 mag v. 10mm" debate is concerned (and you're genuinely interested in comparing apples-to-apples), would be a chronograph test pitting a 357 Coonan autoloader against any 10mm autoloader having the same length barrel, ... and see whose outcomes win the velocity/energy tests. And no cherry-picking, dudenals ... That means using real (full-throttle) 10mm ammo in the one, and no .38 Special Eds in the Coonan. Last edited by agtman; March 30, 2017 at 09:20 AM. |
|
March 30, 2017, 09:38 AM | #59 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 2,192
|
[quote]One exception to this asymmetry, at least where the ".357 mag v. 10mm" debate is concerned (and you're genuinely interested in comparing apples-to-apples), would be a chronograph test pitting a 357 Coonan autoloader against any 10mm autoloader having the same length barrel, ... and see whose outcomes win the velocity/energy tests[/quote[
While this would be interesting it would also be of use only to those intending to compare the two rounds directly in very similar platforms. As has been noted though we are not really just comparing 10MM vs .357. For instance though I own both the .357 (Ruger SP101 with 3" barrel) I have is likely not comparable to either 10MM. MAYBE the G29 with its shorter barrel but probably not the Delta Elite. The G29 and .357 to me both represent the pinnacle of "do everything" guns in their categories. Both are capable, though less than ideal, as woods guns and both are capable, though less than ideal, as concealed carry firearms. |
March 30, 2017, 09:43 AM | #60 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 1998
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 4,296
|
I own a few of both. For me, easy answer...the 10mm in the S&W 610.
If it was between a SA 10mm or a .357 Mag Revolver, I would go with the .357 Mag. With what I do with these two cartridges, the revolver wins. I'd stick with the .41 Mag revolver over either though. |
March 30, 2017, 09:52 AM | #61 | |
Junior member
Join Date: July 26, 2001
Location: midwest
Posts: 2,374
|
Quote:
That's why an apples-to-apples comparison of these cartridges, using the same platform, would make sense toward resolving the issue - it's by far the most popular among inquiring minds who want to know accurate details about fun and useful stuff .. . Last edited by agtman; March 30, 2017 at 02:11 PM. |
|
March 30, 2017, 12:10 PM | #62 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
|
Well, I own multiple .357s and decided to get a 10MM 1911 when I read about a black bear sighting about 50 miles away. It's more concealable when I urban carry for bear defense.
|
April 14, 2017, 07:13 AM | #63 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 29, 2011
Posts: 870
|
Hmm, have both, love both.
If I had to choose just one I think I would keep my .357s. I couldn't bear parting with 90% of my revolvers and I have other 1911s in 45. |
April 14, 2017, 07:29 AM | #64 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 3, 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 970
|
When comparing barrel lengths between an autoloader and a revolver it's not the same. Say you have a 4" barrel in an autoloader and a 4" barrel on a revolver they're not the same.
It comes to "speaking length" of the 4" barrel which is from the bottom of the bullet to the end of the muzzle. In an autoloader the casing takes up some of the barrel and in the revolver the bullet is inside the cylinder so you can add about 1/2" to the speaking length of the 4" barrel. |
April 14, 2017, 09:57 AM | #65 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 28, 2017
Posts: 272
|
It's hard to figure why revolver barrels are measured differently than most firearms, which is breech-face to muzzle.
When comparing ballistics, this would be the way to measure, although it could cause confusion when discussing other aspects. As mentioned above, a 4" revolver (as typically measured) is considerably larger overall than a typical 5" semi-auto. The commonly used specs are misleading for purposes other than comparing revolvers to other revolvers. |
April 14, 2017, 03:35 PM | #66 | |||
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
because, if you do, shouldn't you also subtract case length from the speaking length of the autopistol barrel?? A revolver barrel is nominally what ever length it is, 4", 6", etc., from one end to the other. That is the length of the rifled tube. A semi auto pistol barrel can be the same overall length but, it includes the chamber, so the length of the rifled tube is shorter than it is in the same length revolver barrel, by the length of the loaded round, approximately. The .357 Magnum has a max SAAMI spec length of 1.590, the 10mm 1.250". If you are adding a half inch (as the approximate distance from the base of the bullet to the rifling) in a revolver shouldn't you also subtract the approximate inch (.357)or 3/4" (10mm) taken up by the case in an autopistol barrel to make the "speaking length" of both? And I don't see where the "speaking length" is making any allowance for the barrel/cylinder gap of a revolver. Could you explain further, please??
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|||
April 14, 2017, 04:06 PM | #67 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 3, 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 970
|
That's just a guesstimate but you get my point.
To make it fair, the barrel length of a revolver should include the cylinder chamber just like the chamber/barrel of a autoloader. |
April 14, 2017, 08:31 PM | #68 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 28, 2017
Posts: 272
|
Quote:
I'm thinking of it in terms of standardization for comparison to different types of firearms but that is not the intent of the manufacturer's description. I doubt we're going to upset a long history of describing revolver barrels as we do and it would cause a lot of confusion if we did. It's not difficult to use the entire "length under pressure" for comparing ballistics and handling qualities if we so wish, with the acknowledgement that this is not the literal, but rather the functional barrel length. Accounting for the cylinder gap is a tough one. We'll never have a usable apples to apples comparison between revolvers and semi-autos in every respect but we can come a lot closer than using the catalog barrel dimensions. |
|
April 14, 2017, 10:07 PM | #69 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
|
Quote:
Comparing different guns and different loads in gun with the SAME listed barrel length produces differing results, even when the barrels actually ARE the same length, so I wouldn't sweat it much. People will claim the superiority of their favored round (or load) if they get a handful of FPS faster than the "competition", and the reality is, that velocity advantage can disappear with a different gun, or even a different bullet in the same gun. Here's an example of what is possible (its not the usual, but it happens enough to not be a freak occurrence) A hot 125gr .357 load (2400 powder) chronographed from three different guns with nominal 6" barrels. A S&W M19, a S&W M28, and a Desert Eagle. M19: 1620fps M28: 1670fps DE: 1720fps The DE turned in the highest speed, despite the fact that the actual DE barrel includes the chamber. Also, the DE barrel used was polygonal rifled. SO, somehow, despite a shorter "effective" length, the polygonal rifling and no cylinder gap turned in the highest velocity. Now, do note the 50fps difference between the two different revolvers, both with 6" barrels, so the difference there is strictly the difference between two essentially "identical" barrels. The point here is that barrels the same length, measured the same way, shooting the same ammo, turn in different velocities. Most of the time its only a handful of fps variation, but sometimes, its considerably more, and this is NORMAL. In other words, the guy who claims his choice is superior because his gun and load clock 37 fps more than yours, or more than a quoted book speed is blowing powder smoke up your ...nose...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
April 14, 2017, 10:40 PM | #70 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 3, 2017
Posts: 1,583
|
Having had two 4 inch revolvers of the same make and type with serial numbers that were less than 20 apart and firing identical loads through both guns over a chronograph I got 150 fps difference in average velocity between them.
Just the internal dimensions of the barrel and its finish was the only difference between the two revolvers. When you start trying to compare the velocities of ammo between pistols you will run into the same variations. That is why we have chronographs... so we know the actual velocity of our bullets. If you don't measure you are guessing. |
April 14, 2017, 10:44 PM | #71 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 28, 2017
Posts: 272
|
Quote:
A less usable, but likely more accurate formula would include a gazillion dimensions, pressures etc. Just identifying the factors could be a major job, depending how far you want to take it. And as your example implies, there are probably subtle factors that we would struggle to quantify. Polygonal rifling for instance. I think you'd just have to isolate the variable, do a lot of shooting, then average out the results to come up with an approximate correction factor. It would take a lot of time and resources. I'll have to settle for the short form version. |
|
April 14, 2017, 11:04 PM | #72 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 3, 2017
Posts: 1,583
|
Wouldn't it be easier to just use a chronograph?
That is the only way to know the velocity. |
April 15, 2017, 06:25 AM | #73 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 28, 2017
Posts: 272
|
Sure, but the question here is how much gun sizewise will it generally take (in different platforms and calibers) to get that velocity and power. If you mean use a chronograph to get a general idea of the relationship, that would work if you use enough samples. There will be a velocity range even among "identical" guns as you and 44AMP have said.
My 5" .40 will push a 155gr JHP a little over 1300fps which is a hair under 600fpe. This is with standard pressure loads from powder manufacturers and I still haven't been to the max with Power Pistol. A 10mm surely has even more potential. Given enough barrel, a .357 will outdo this but at that point, you are talking about a different sort of gun. A 5" semi-auto is packable. Sizewise, it is about like a 3 to 3-1/2" revolver. That is what I am getting at and what you don't see when concentrating on advertised ballistics and literal revolver barrel length. My GP-100 has a 6" barrel by the way. I like it a lot for its intended purpose. The length and sight radius are actually a plus there. I'd rather not try to CC the thing though. Even open carry would be somewhat of a pain. |
April 15, 2017, 02:14 PM | #74 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 3, 2017
Posts: 1,583
|
Random guy,
A 6 inch Ruger is not difficult to carry at all. I've done it for 45 years. I have carried it in a custom pancake holster and a shoulder rig. It is easier to access in a shoulder rig, especially when seated or driving a car. I have carried it in a western style holster when back packing too. |
April 15, 2017, 06:57 PM | #75 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
|
Its funny, how attitudes and opinions change over time. Those "old guys" who were writing about guns in the 50s, 60, & 70s were all pretty uniform in their opinions about packing/concealing a revolver.
And that was that the bulk of a revolver is in the frame/cylinder and the grips, and the barrel length didn't make as much difference in concealing the revolver, until you go significantly beyond 6".
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|