rugerman07
Member
Which is best for personal defense? Which one packs the hardest punch? Are they pretty much equal when it comes to stopping power?
357 Magnum vs 45 ACP
- Thread starter rugerman07
- Start date
- Status
Mandirigma
Member
grabs the popcorn and Dr. Pepper
Ain't been one of these in a while....heh
Ain't been one of these in a while....heh
Bill_G
Member
shoot a full house 357 at night at your pistol range (lights off) without ear muffs, and i guarantee you wont ever do it again!
thats what its like shooting it at home at night for self defense.
modern designed name brand 38+p is the way to go. like gold dots.... golden sabre etc.
thats what its like shooting it at home at night for self defense.modern designed name brand 38+p is the way to go. like gold dots.... golden sabre etc.
rugerman07
Member
The reason I asked this question is because a guy I work with who is very knowledgeable when it comes to guns claims the 45 ACP actually has more stopping power than the 357 magnum.
bikerdoc
Moderator In Memoriam
another versus threads, yawn. ok i will play. Have both, use both.
"best for personal defense?"- the one you can hit what is threatening you. As for hardest punch, and stopping power, let the statistics, references,quotes, and passions flow!
"best for personal defense?"- the one you can hit what is threatening you. As for hardest punch, and stopping power, let the statistics, references,quotes, and passions flow!
Some of you might remember that, back in the 80's, Evan Marshall did a study of actual shootings and found that the .357 mag 125gr SJHPs managed 96% one-shot stops, compared to about 65% for .45 ACP 230gr JHPs.
I'd say that .357 is better.....as long as you don't need to reload.
I'd say that .357 is better.....as long as you don't need to reload.
Ash
Member
Well, 357 has significantly more energy than the 45acp.
Ash
Ash
ojibweindian
Member
Actually, that is incorrect. The 230 grain Federal Hydra-Shok was rated by Marshall and Sanow to be 94% effective.
I refer you to this chart: http://www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_power_chart.htm
mljdeckard
Member
Even if you regard the Marshall tests as absolute gospel, what we are talking about here is probability. There are those who say that the ammount of energy a bullet takes into a target is entirely irrelevant, as no pistol round has enough actual energy to 'knock a man down'. This would mean that, it doesn't matter if a .357 has more energy than a .357, it's smaller and therefore less potent.
On the other hand, there are those who regard the difference between the diameter of an expanded .45 bullet and a .357 bullet to be insignificant, both creating roughly the same size wound channel, and therin cm3 of tissue damage, making the 2 mm of difference in size irrelevant.
I will be sticking with .45s, mostly because I like 1911s better than large-frame revolvers for defensive shooting. But anyone who is trying to definitively say that one has a clear advantage over the other is probably justifying whichever one they happen to own, or their uncle who was a cop for two years told them was the best.
On the other hand, there are those who regard the difference between the diameter of an expanded .45 bullet and a .357 bullet to be insignificant, both creating roughly the same size wound channel, and therin cm3 of tissue damage, making the 2 mm of difference in size irrelevant.
I will be sticking with .45s, mostly because I like 1911s better than large-frame revolvers for defensive shooting. But anyone who is trying to definitively say that one has a clear advantage over the other is probably justifying whichever one they happen to own, or their uncle who was a cop for two years told them was the best.
Ash
Member
The 357 is generally not chambered in large frame revolvers, but medium-frames. Large frames are generally reserved for 44's and 45's (and larger).
Ash
Ash
wnycollector
Member
I own both caliber's, I shoot them both well and carry both. I feel confident that either one will do the job if called upon.
With that being said, for outdoor activites such as hiking/canoeing I prefer the .357, mainly because of the revolver platform.
With that being said, for outdoor activites such as hiking/canoeing I prefer the .357, mainly because of the revolver platform.
Ghost Tracker
Member
Let's, just for fun, agree...that both have exactly the same one-shot stopping power (+94% with the right defensive loads). Now, go spend ALL DAY training and/or practicing firing several hundred rounds; all drills, from a variety of positions, indoors/outdoors, low/bright light, etc., etc.
You'll soon come to the same opinion (I said opinion) that most experienced pistoleros eventually reach. If both calibers & formats provide generally the same stopping power, and you (want/have) to shoot A LOT...the .45 acp is a more comfortable way to do the same thing.
If I'm going to a class at Gunsite (Thunder Ranch, where-ever), and someone has brought a .357 mag as their tool-of-choice, I (personally) would prefer them to be at the other end of the firing line than positioned next to me. My nerves & focus will remain more "collected" by the end of the day. That being said...I still think the .357 mag is a great caliber in a mid-size revolver.
You'll soon come to the same opinion (I said opinion) that most experienced pistoleros eventually reach. If both calibers & formats provide generally the same stopping power, and you (want/have) to shoot A LOT...the .45 acp is a more comfortable way to do the same thing.
If I'm going to a class at Gunsite (Thunder Ranch, where-ever), and someone has brought a .357 mag as their tool-of-choice, I (personally) would prefer them to be at the other end of the firing line than positioned next to me. My nerves & focus will remain more "collected" by the end of the day. That being said...I still think the .357 mag is a great caliber in a mid-size revolver.
Ash
Member
Yet, to claim exactly the same, the 357 must be reduced to 45ACP performance. I use a 45ACP EAA Witness, though do have Colt Trooper Mk III 357's. The fact remains that the 357 is more powerful than 45ACP. It is a more capable field cartridge when dealing with animals and is most certainly more capable than 45ACP. There is a reason why almost all police carried 357's over 45 revolvers. Size of platform is one reason, of course. But the fact remains that the 357 was issued when the 45 was not. Even when revolvers were discarded for autos, the 45 was not the first choice.
Again, I prefer my 45ACP for home (carried it after Katrina). But the 357 without doubt packs the hardest punch.
Ash
Again, I prefer my 45ACP for home (carried it after Katrina). But the 357 without doubt packs the hardest punch.
Ash
Ghost Tracker
Member
Okay, but if I'm squirrel hunting, and both my .223 & my .45-70 is plenty of power (very tough Kentucky squirrels) to get the job done with the same confidence, would you make the same comparison? That the 45-70 stops squirrels better?
Ben Shepherd
Member
Raw Horsepower? The 357 wins. Just physics.
Shootability? Most folks I know will tell you that they can get follow up shots quicker with a 45 than with a snubby 357. This because of that power difference. A mid-sized or even compact 1911 in 45 recoils much less that a 2 or 3 inch snubby revolver with full house 357 ammo.
Ammo capacity: 90 percent of the time, the 45 will have more ammo on tap before needing a reload.
Portability: Generally a semi-auto is easier to carry/conceal than a snubby. It's the ergonomics. Short barreled revolvers are short AND wide. Kind of like holstering a baseball. Whereas a semi auto is fairly flat and easy to hide. Slightly more forgiving if your carry gear isn't up to snuff, as they spread the weight out over a wider area.
Shootability? Most folks I know will tell you that they can get follow up shots quicker with a 45 than with a snubby 357. This because of that power difference. A mid-sized or even compact 1911 in 45 recoils much less that a 2 or 3 inch snubby revolver with full house 357 ammo.
Ammo capacity: 90 percent of the time, the 45 will have more ammo on tap before needing a reload.
Portability: Generally a semi-auto is easier to carry/conceal than a snubby. It's the ergonomics. Short barreled revolvers are short AND wide. Kind of like holstering a baseball. Whereas a semi auto is fairly flat and easy to hide. Slightly more forgiving if your carry gear isn't up to snuff, as they spread the weight out over a wider area.
packnrat
Member
hay i need a new home defence gun, shoud i use a .22 pocket gun or a rifle chamberd in 50bmg?
both will get the job done,
just sitting here eating popcorn and a soft drink injoying the ranting
.
both will get the job done,
just sitting here eating popcorn and a soft drink injoying the ranting
.
MCgunner
Member
It's more of whether you like autos or revolvers as I see it. The .357 is the more powerful round by a good margin, more equal to the 10mm than the .45ACP. But, in self defense loads, the .45 is plenty and has advantages even if you don't like autos, like less muzzle blast and quicker recovery shot to shot and the fact that in self defense revolvers of less than 3" barrels, the .357 doesn't really have a whole log on the better .45 loads. It's only equal to the 10mm out of 6" barrels. Cut barrel length to 2 incyhes and you give up a LOT and gain a LOT of muzzle blast. Neither the .357 nor the .45 ACP is magic. They still require shot placement.
BTW, I'll take my SP101 for carry ANY day over a 1911 for ease of carry and concealment, no contest, SP101 wins that fight. I've carried both in good leather with good belts. I know this. A 1911 might theoretically "spread the weight", but it's a hell of a lot heavier than the SP101's 27 ounces. 40 ounce guns pull my pants down and I'm constantly hitchin' 'em up. Not so the SP101. It ain't the leather, Milt Sparks.
BTW, I'll take my SP101 for carry ANY day over a 1911 for ease of carry and concealment, no contest, SP101 wins that fight. I've carried both in good leather with good belts. I know this. A 1911 might theoretically "spread the weight", but it's a hell of a lot heavier than the SP101's 27 ounces. 40 ounce guns pull my pants down and I'm constantly hitchin' 'em up. Not so the SP101. It ain't the leather, Milt Sparks.
DougDubya
Member
There WAS a thread named this only a couple weeks ago, right?
DougDubya
Member
I would think that the .45-70 doesn't stop a squirrel. The heart flies left. The kidneys fly right. And everything in between remains in between, but an inch from itself across 12 feet of spray spatter.
Archer1945
Member
Wrong!!! The 357 was chambered in large frame revolvers long before it was put into medium and now, small frame, guns. The S&W N-frame Model 27 and Model 28 were catalog items for years before the K-frame Model 19 arrived on the scene. Colt, Dan Wesson and Ruger all have/had large frame 357's. The Colt Python and Trooper definitely were not medium frame guns. The frame on the L-frame Smiths is almost the same size as the N-frame, they just have a K-frame grip.
Bill Jordan convinced S&W they would sell more 357s if they would come out with a K-frame version because the N-frame Model 27 & 28 were much too large for comfortable all day carry and too large for most people to grip easily.
xjchief
Member
Aren't the 45 the 357 are inferior to the 9mm?
Muahahahahahhaahah
Muahahahahahhaahah
Cromlech
Member
I've only shot one handgun in each calibre (1911A1 and S&W 586). I found that the .357 Mag had a really nice flat trajectory, and was VERY loud. Great to shoot. The .45acp was more of a gentle shove, and seemed to shoot high - though that was probably down to me. I imagine that I could have shot more .45acp rounds before wearing my wrist out than .357 Mag rounds, but I really loved the .357 Mag. More so than the .44 Mag I fired from a 629 classic.
- Status
