The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: General Handgun Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old March 28, 2017, 02:27 PM   #51
agtman
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2001
Location: midwest
Posts: 2,374
Quote:
Again, the 10mm has more power
Not only that (in a fair comparison), but the heavy 10mm bullets (200gns and up) also have a wider surface diameter - which matters at real 10mm impact velocities on animals, ... 4-legged or 2-legged.
agtman is offline  
Old March 29, 2017, 07:32 AM   #52
random guy
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.
random guy is offline  
Old March 29, 2017, 09:35 AM   #53
Boogershooter
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".
Boogershooter is offline  
Old March 29, 2017, 12:31 PM   #54
CDW4ME
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 18, 2009
Posts: 1,321
Quote:
Not only that (in a fair comparison), but the heavy 10mm bullets (200gns and up) also have a wider surface diameter - which matters at real 10mm impact velocities on animals, ... 4-legged or 2-legged.
How about a 200 gr. @ 1,261 fps / 706# KE for 10mm impact.
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.
CDW4ME is offline  
Old March 29, 2017, 07:39 PM   #55
jad0110
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.
jad0110 is offline  
Old March 30, 2017, 08:05 AM   #56
buck460XVR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2006
Posts: 4,341
Quote:
Again, the 10mm has more power
....but just slightly. A better comparison to a revolver cartridge would be the .41mag. Which suffers from the same Red-Headed step-child syndrome that the 10mm does. Both are excellent calibers. Both were highly heralded when introduced and both are highly praised by the few folks that own and use them. Both have a loyal following, albeit small. If not for that infamous nationally televised gunfight in 1986, the 10mm might very well be dead right now instead of on life support. In the aftermath of the obvious inefficiency of 9mm to sufficiently penetrate to readily incapacitate, the FBI and other LE agencies realized that magnum like ballistics were needed again for law enforcement. Problem was, high recoil and platforms that didn't fit female and smaller handed male officers. While the round permitted more firepower, it also resulted in poorer accuracy and slower follow up shots. Thus the .40 S&W was born.

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.
buck460XVR is offline  
Old March 30, 2017, 08:08 AM   #57
Lohman446
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.
Lohman446 is offline  
Old March 30, 2017, 09:12 AM   #58
agtman
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2001
Location: midwest
Posts: 2,374
Quote:
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.
Bingo !!! Winner, Winner - you get the chicken dinner!

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.
agtman is offline  
Old March 30, 2017, 09:38 AM   #59
Lohman446
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.
Lohman446 is offline  
Old March 30, 2017, 09:43 AM   #60
MarkCO
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.
__________________
Good Shooting, MarkCO
www.CarbonArms.us
MarkCO is offline  
Old March 30, 2017, 09:52 AM   #61
agtman
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2001
Location: midwest
Posts: 2,374
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.
A quick search on this board, or elsewhere across the 'Net, would tell you that the ".357 Mag revolver v 10mm autoloader" debate is the most recurring one that exists. Seen it many, many times over the years here, over on GT, on THR, on AR15.com, etc.

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.
agtman is offline  
Old March 30, 2017, 12:10 PM   #62
KyJim
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.
KyJim is offline  
Old April 14, 2017, 07:13 AM   #63
jr24
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.
jr24 is offline  
Old April 14, 2017, 07:29 AM   #64
Oysterboy
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.
Oysterboy is offline  
Old April 14, 2017, 09:57 AM   #65
random guy
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.
random guy is offline  
Old April 14, 2017, 03:35 PM   #66
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
Quote:
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.
This would give you a general idea, but isn't definitive for every situation. Using a Contender with barrels for each caliber would be the same, a general idea, but since barrels vary, one would need multiple examples to be certain the velocities weren't just flukes. 50fps or more, (even 100fps is not unknown) difference between the same length barrels shooting the same ammunition happens. If either of your test guns happens to be unusually fast, or slow, it could give you a misleading result.

Quote:
It's hard to figure why revolver barrels are measured differently than most firearms, which is breech-face to muzzle.
It might be because that is the actual length of the barrel.

Quote:
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.
I understand how you are measuring, but am uncertain what you are saying. Are you saying we should add 1/2" to the revolver barrel length as "speaking length" over the auto pistol barrel length?

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.
44 AMP is offline  
Old April 14, 2017, 04:06 PM   #67
Oysterboy
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.
Oysterboy is offline  
Old April 14, 2017, 08:31 PM   #68
random guy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 28, 2017
Posts: 272
Quote:
It might be because that is the actual length of the barrel.
Yeah, you got me there.

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.
random guy is offline  
Old April 14, 2017, 10:07 PM   #69
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
Quote:
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.
You're probably right, but what else do we have but the listed barrel lengths?

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.
44 AMP is offline  
Old April 14, 2017, 10:40 PM   #70
ShootistPRS
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.
ShootistPRS is offline  
Old April 14, 2017, 10:44 PM   #71
random guy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 28, 2017
Posts: 272
Quote:
You're probably right, but what else do we have but the listed barrel lengths?
Well, for the purpose of comparing different handgun types, I think a very practical first step is to use "length under pressure" or "effective barrel length" as opposed to literal barrel length of revolvers. Then perhaps apply a rule of thumb factor to account for cylinder gap. That is what I would call a usable formula for informal comparison. Not exact but better than taking the catalog lengths literally.

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.
random guy is offline  
Old April 14, 2017, 11:04 PM   #72
ShootistPRS
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.
ShootistPRS is offline  
Old April 15, 2017, 06:25 AM   #73
random guy
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.
random guy is offline  
Old April 15, 2017, 02:14 PM   #74
ShootistPRS
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.
ShootistPRS is offline  
Old April 15, 2017, 06:57 PM   #75
44 AMP
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.
44 AMP is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.10739 seconds with 8 queries