Which is more powerful....

[Dave Nowlin]

a 9mm LCR or one chambered for .357 mag  If you do your homework the result will surprise you.  In the 1 7/8 inch barrel of the LCR in the 124-125 grain range the 9mm is actually faster without all the muzzle blast of the .357 and is more pleasant to shoot.  How can this be?  Well if you study both pistols you will find they both have the same length cylinders and the 9mm when loaded in the cylinder has much more freebore than the .357  that gives it more barrel length even though some of it isn't rifled.  Therefore the bullet is subject to being pushed by the propellant for a greater distance before exiting the bore.  In a few days I will shoot my .357 SP-101 against the +P 9mm in the LCR and chronograph both.  This is a valid test as both pistols have roughly the same barrel length.  If you go to a web page called ballistics by the inch you will see that in a 2 inch barrel the 9mm +P loading is faster than the .357  These tests are actually run through a pressure barrel with no cylinder or cylinder gap.  The advantage shown here doesn't even take into account the extra gain due to the 9mm bullet being further away from the cylinder mouth than the .357  Who would have thought that?

Edited May 2, 2015 by Dave Nowlin

[Patton]

They are closer than many will think, but given the ballistic by the inch testing you said it yourself: the barrel is a fixed breech. However, you would add an inch to their testing to find out what it would be out of a revolver. I have a 2.25" S&W 640 that launches the Federal 158 gr hydro shocks 1160 fps. The only rounds I can get to go that fast out of my Shield are all 115gr. The 124gr Federal HST are moving 100fps less.

When you are talking revolvers only, a small 9mm LCR/940 are still a beast to handle like the .357. The LCRK or a 357 Smith are just a little more versatile. Moon clips can be a blessing and a curse.

I have heard some say that a 9mm revolver loses a lot before it reaches the forcing cone and then the rifling. However, I have never found proof of that. Edited May 2, 2015 by Patton

[Patton]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v391/BDSBruce/Blog%20Photos%204/VelocityTestingResults_zps5a64c242.jpg
It appears most 124 gr +p come up between 1050-1100 through the 9mm LCR. The LCRK appears to have 10% more velocity with similar loads. Edited May 2, 2015 by Patton

[mikegideon]

Yeah, but with a short barrel, the 357 will singe all the hair off your target. A 9mm won't :)

[DaveTN]

The standard defense round for a .357 mag is 158 gr. JHP. What are you going to put in your 9mm that will compete with that?

Velocity is only one factor; you must also apply surface area and mass.

If you like the fact that a 9mm doesn’t recoil as much as .357mag and costs a lot less to shoot; that’s what you should use.

If you want a powerful round; you can do that with the .357 LCR. If you want a round that’s easier for you to shoot; you can also do that with the .357 by shooting .38’s. The .357 LCR has more versatility, doesn’t use moon clips, and is more powerful; so it gets my vote.

[Dave Nowlin]

The 158 grain is not the standard defense load in the .357  All of Evan Marshall's data pertained to a 125 grain load used by law enforcement.  That is also what was being attempted to equal when the .357 Sig hit the marketplace.  The 125 grain .357 had the best record of one shot stops from the data studied not someone's ideas.  I will grant you that in the 38+P the 158 is the standard loading.

[dcloudy777]

What the 9mm revolver really needs is a shorter cylinder and set-back barrel, to maximize barrel length in the same size envelope.

 

Smith did this a while back with the  .45ACP 625-10.  Looks funny, but more barrel = more better.

 

 

[JAB]

The 158 grain is not the standard defense load in the .357  All of Evan Marshall's data pertained to a 125 grain load used by law enforcement.  That is also what was being attempted to equal when the .357 Sig hit the marketplace.  The 125 grain .357 had the best record of one shot stops from the data studied not someone's ideas.  I will grant you that in the 38+P the 158 is the standard loading.

 

Marshall's findings, while interesting data points, are often discounted nowadays because of questions about his data, the validity of his approach and - most importantly - a relatively small sample size for some firearms as well as some types/weights of bullets, loadings and so on within a particular firearm type.

 

It is my understanding - and I could certainly be wrong - that the .357 was originally developed to use a 158 grain loading and that most if not all revolvers with fixed sights have the sights more or less set up to use a 158 grain loading for POI to be closest to POA.  In fact, I have read cautions against excessive use of the lighter weight bullets - especially 110 grain but even 125 grain to some extent - because they can supposedly cause increased flame cutting and other problems that, over time, can prematurely wear the revolver.

 

You cited Ballistics by the Inch in previous posts.  If you notice, on the heavier end of things the .357 outperforms the 9mm.  The Federal Hydra-Shok 147 grain 9mm hit 837 fps from their two inch test barrel.  The 158 grain .357 Hydra-Shok hit 858 fps.  Not a huge difference but 21 fps faster with a bullet that is 11 grains heavier does give the 'w' to .357.

 

How about real world guns?  Well, the 147 grain 9mm Hydra-Shok hit 933 fps from the 3 inch barrel of a Para LDS Carry 9.  The 158 grain .357 Hydra-Shok hit 1154 fps from the three inch barrel of a Bond Arms Texas Defender.  I think that is a good comparison because, like 9mm semi, the Bond Arms doesn't have a cylinder gap through which to loose pressure.  That is a 221 fps difference with a bullet that weighs 11 grains more.  Once, again, the .357 gets the 'w'.

 

I think you do have a point in that the .357 doesn't show such marked increases in performance out of shorter barrels as it does out of 4 inch barrels and up.  Further, .357 appears to show marked velocity increases once you get into carbine/rifle length barrels whereas 9mm - for some, odd reason - doesn't really gain that much velocity from being fired from a carbine over being fired from a handgun.  Anyhow, the lack of marked increase in performance from a super-short barrel as compared to the increase in recoil, noise and fireball are some of the reasons that some folks cite to support the idea that - in a snubbie revolver - one is just as well off if not better off with .38 Special.  Some even say the same about .38+P vs. standard pressure in that they don't believe the rather minimal velocity increases from a snub barrel vs. the increased recoil and so on make +P 'worth it' in a snub.  I am not so sure on that as I believe that 'some' .38+P likely has just enough of an increase in velocity to make the difference between a JHP expanding correctly or not.  The thing is, going by the data on BBTI, to even get close to a .357 you would have to use +P ammo in the 9mm.  Using +P 9mm, IMO, would pretty well negate any potential advantage the 9mm might have in the areas of recoil and so on.  In other words, at standard pressure loadings the .357 beats the 9mm in velocity but the 9mm might have less recoil and so on.  In +P loads the 9mm might match or even slightly beat the .357 for velocity but probably not by any significant amount and you give up the advantages of less recoil, etc. in the 9mm.

 

My honest opinion is that - with good JHP ammo - one is about as likely to put an assailant on his butt as the other.  In fact, .when talking about snubbie revolvers, my guess would be that a .38 Special with good JHP ammo would perform pretty close to those two on the 'put the assailant on his butt' scale.  To go a step further, I honestly think that if an assailant keeps coming after someone puts a good JHP .380 round or two in him with good shot placement from a P3AT, LCP, etc. then it probably wouldn't make much difference if the intended victim had a 9mm, etc. instead as nothing short of a 12 gauge is likely to stop such an assailant cold.  But that is just my opinion. 

Edited May 5, 2015 by JAB

[chances R]

First, some velocity will be lost to cylinder gap vs. solid test barrel.  Secondly, doubt the subject on the receiving end is going to tell you which is which.  But am awaiting the chrono results.

[ttocswob]

Also, your comparison is incomplete unless you include .357 magnum ammo that is designed for short barreled revolvers, such as Gold Dot or Golden Saber. My LCR with 135g Gold Dots clocked at 1,083, and I have some 125g PMC that went 1,153 fps. Fiocchi 158g XTP's managed 1,033 fps. If you have some 147g 9mm, that might be an interesting comparison.

 

YMMV, and probably will.

[zybysco]

Everything I've read shows the 9mm a little faster than 38 special plus p. I would be shocked if 9mm was faster with all factors being equal. I would expect a close race between the 3 though.

[Jonnin]

Define powerful?   You have momentum and energy or the combined effect of the two concepts.  You have to account for wasted physics too -- a bullet that goes thru something still has X amount of momentum and velocity that did nothing to the target and instead is still attacked to the bullet -- the idea of energy (and less spoken of, momentum) transfer.   You have the differences in how the rounds expand, tumble, or whatever.    It is hard to deny that bigger numbers for momentum and energy are better, but if all the extra energy does is carry the round farther after going through the target, and they both made about the same sized hole, ... that would be about equally effective even if one had more 'physics' than the other.   Its very hard to quantify 'powerful' here, or general effectiveness.  

 

All things being equal, the 357 should have a higher total physics score (say, add momentum and energy together and compare the two).   How much of the extra physics is converted into additional damage done to a target and how much is wasted is up for debate.

[Caster]

Power is a bit subjective.  Which one you can consistently make good hits with.....that's the most powerful one.  

[tnvarmint]

I carry both a 9mm and a 357 at different times.  My 9mm is a Glock however and not a revolver.  I did a lot of research when I bought my Ruger SP101 357 because I was looking for something with a little more power for when I am hiking on the AT and in bear country.  I watched a lot of videos and read a lot of reports on both rounds.  Hands down, the 357 had a ton more energy in ballistics gel tests than the 9mm did.  I have never done any gel tests myself but have shot my share of jugs and melons (no pun intended) and there is definitely a noticeable difference between the 9mm and 357.  

 

Don't get me wrong, I love both calibers and each have a place in my carry rotation.  The 9mm has far less recoil and allows me to be much more accurate which hopefully means much more lethal.  The 357 though is just an awesome round and the power of it is apparent when actually shooting into something.

 

Just for comparison, I shoot Hornady 124 gr XTP out of my 9mm and Hornady 158 gr XTP out of my 357.  The 9mm has 339 ft-lbs of energy and 1110 ft/sec velocity at the muzzle while the 357 has 548 ft-lbs of energy and 1250 ft/sec.  That's a 62% increase in energy from the 9mm to the 357.

Edited May 15, 2015 by tnvarmint

[Jonnin]

are you sure about that varmint?

I would bet that 357 and 9mm both out of the same length barrel are pretty darn close in defensive barrel lengths of say an average of 3-5 inches.   The 357 should win hands down in a rifle or long barrel gun, but the shorter the barrel, the less the difference would be my best guess.    Were the guns you compared using the same length?  1 inch is huge on small guns...   I believe your numbers, just double checking the apples to apples factor ?

Edited May 15, 2015 by Jonnin

[Patton]

Those numbers are correct. In general, a 4" barrel .357 mag revolver has always produced about 550-600lbs of energy with 158gr magnums. A 3" barrel produces about 10% less. Normally a 1250fps in a 4" and 1125fps in a 3" revolver. Edited May 15, 2015 by Patton

[DaveTN]

I would bet that 357 and 9mm both out of the same length barrel are pretty darn close in defensive barrel lengths of say an average of 3-5 inches.

I’ll take that bet. But we need to find someone to volunteer to get shot with both and not call the cops.... And no crying!

[Patton]

Having owned a 3" k frame in 357 and many compact Glocks, I can say that they carry about the same and are very comparable. Any +p 124 gr 9mm out of a Glock 19 should give you at least 1150fps. The 3" k frame with 125gr magnums should be at least 1400 fps. The projectiles are relatively the same.

When talking snub nosed revolvers and sub compacts, you may close the gap to within 100fps. More than likely though you still have about 200-150fps difference. Edited May 15, 2015 by Patton

[K191145]

The standard defense round for a .357 mag is 158 gr. JHP. What are you going to put in your 9mm that will compete with that?

Velocity is only one factor; you must also apply surface area and mass.

If you like the fact that a 9mm doesn’t recoil as much as .357mag and costs a lot less to shoot; that’s what you should use.

If you want a powerful round; you can do that with the .357 LCR. If you want a round that’s easier for you to shoot; you can also do that with the .357 by shooting .38’s. The .357 LCR has more versatility, doesn’t use moon clips, and is more powerful; so it gets my vote.

 

I refreshed my memory yesterday about why I don't practice, or fire more than 2 cylinders of 158 gr. .357mag out of my 2" barrel SP101. A couple of weeks ago I took off the Hogue grip off and put the factory grip back on and it's a damn unpleasant little tank to shoot with those loads and the factory grip. Needless to say I continued with .38's for target practice and when I cleaned it at home I put the Hogue back on.  I've never shot those through a chronograph but they have to be hauling ass with that recoil, even out of a snubby barrell.

Edited May 16, 2015 by K191145

[nightrunner]

9mm vs full power .357mag is no contest, no matter the barrel length.

Now, 9mm vs .38spl +P, that's going to be very close with I think 9mm having the edge.

[graycrait]

Why do folks continue to argue/compare/contrast standard handgun calibers?  In modern JHP it is likely a moot point. If .357 was so incomparable then Spec Ops/FBI SWAT would be using them.  Best learn to pull that gat fast and fill the target full of holes.   Unless you are on khat or something similar a batch of holes from .22 to .45 will probably do something serious, but no where as serious as .223 and above.  Then comes 20 or 12 gauge.   I don't know of one bona fide civilian who has the training/experience to be so steely eyed in a surprise situation to coldly put one between the eyes or anywhere in the CNS while taking holes themselves. Most gun play talk is delusional.  Best be of pleasant demeanor, stay away from crazy/drugs/booze, and live life low profile, probably won't need a gun except to kill the occasional possum' or fox raiding the hen house. 

Edited May 16, 2015 by graycrait

[mikegideon]

 And no crying!

 

That should be easy enough if they're just standing there when you shoot them.

[mikegideon]

Why do folks continue to argue/compare/contrast standard handgun calibers?  In modern JHP it is likely a moot point. If .357 was so incomparable then Spec Ops/FBI SWAT would be using them.  Best learn to pull that gat fast and fill the target full of holes.   Unless you are on khat or something similar a batch of holes from .22 to .45 will probably do something serious, but no where as serious as .223 and above.  Then comes 20 or 12 gauge.   I don't know of one bona fide civilian who has the training/experience to be so steely eyed in a surprise situation to coldly put one between the eyes or anywhere in the CNS while taking holes themselves. Most gun play talk is delusional.  Best be of pleasant demeanor, stay away from crazy/drugs/booze, and live life low profile, probably won't need a gun except to kill the occasional possum' or fox raiding the hen house. 

 

No special ops/swat/ninja type is gonna pick a revolver. They may pick a .357 Sig, which is kinda sorta the same.

[tnvarmint]

 

 

If .357 was so incomparable then Spec Ops/FBI SWAT would be using them.

 

Actually if you read the FBIs report on calibers, they fairly definitively (at least in my book) answer the discussion on calibers.  Basically, they state "bigger is better".  In the end though due to availability of the rounds and the ability of the average shooter to control the rounds better, their caliber of choice is the 9mm.  They say that although a bigger caliber such as the 40 or 45 punches a bigger hole, the shooter is better served by being able to put multiple rounds on target with greater accuracy afforded by the lesser recoil of the 9mm.  In the same report I believe they also mention that the 357 Mag was the caliber of choice by the FBI for something like 35 years before being replaced by the 9mm.

 

All of this is from memory so don't quote me on it.  It's been a while and I don't have the report in front of me as it's at home on my reloading bench.

 

I also had the opportunity to work along side a SEAL team back in the 90s when I was in the Navy and doing VBSS.  They all used 9mm in both the sidearms (Sigs) and rifles (MP5s) and when I asked them about it they said the caliber choice for them was primarily due to the same reasons above.  Availability and control.  And when I say "work" I mean I stood there and drooled like an idiot as I watched them.  I was just a stupid, young sailor at the time and am by no means putting myself anywhere near the level of the US Navy SEALS!

[gregintenn]

When you get a 9mm load worked up for a 180 grain Hornady XTP we'll talk.