Comparing Popular Self Defense Handgun Calibers

 I own more .357 Magnum firearms than all other caliber handguns combined. The first three center fire handguns I owned were revolvers and two were .357 magnums. I carried S&W models 19, 66 and 28 .357 Magnum revolvers on and off duty for many years during my 35-year career as a Los Angeles Police Officer. The .357 Magnum is a classic caliber. It is one of my favorite calibers and it has been for more than 50 years. I shot them in competition for 20 years. I carried them for woods protection and hunted with them. I use them for Cowboy Action Shooting Competition. They are versatile and powerful. I still carry a S&W M 340 2-inch .357 Magnum revolver as a back-up or second gun in concealed carry. Please do not accuse me of being biased against the .357 Magnum or revolvers. I strive for one thing in teaching and testing. Truth. If you do not wish to be confused by facts, read no further. If your biases are set in “stone” you will not appreciate my findings.

 Many firearms related items are named by an archaic system. Thirty-eight caliber revolvers are called .38 caliber, but we all know that is simply what they are called. The projectiles are of course less than .36 caliber. If you were to buy projectiles to hand load for your .38 Special revolver and you acquired bullets that were .38 caliber those projectiles would of course be useless. Bullets for a so called .38 measure .357 or .358. We know that .44 Specials are just less than .43 caliber. Forty-four is just what we call them. When we buy 44 caliber projectiles to hand load, we buy bullets that measure about .429 or .430. The .380 ACP pistol use a .355 caliber projectile. The system by which shotgun gauges are established is also based on a very old way of measuring which explains why a 20-gauge shotgun is less powerful and has a smaller bore than a 12-gauge shotgun, although the number 20 is obviously larger that the number 12. I understand how the system works but I have no need to explain it here. 

For whatever reason, we do not use the same system for measuring revolver barrels that we use for rifles, shotguns, single shot pistols, semi-automatic pistols derringers and cannons which are all measured from the breech to the muzzle and the firing chamber is included in the barrel length. In fact, in many semi-automatic pistols, the portion of the barrel hood which extends beyond the breech is also included in the barrel length.

Revolvers are about the only firearms on the planet that we do not measure the barrel length as the distance between the breech and the muzzle. If we did so a revolver with a 3-inch barrel would in fact be called a 4.7-inch barreled revolver. A 4-inch revolver would be called a 5.7-inch revolver. Note: I am using a 1.7-inch cylinder as the most common length, but some are much longer. Revolver barrels are named for the length between the cylinder gap and the muzzle, ignoring the firing chamber and the portion of the cylinder forward of the gas ring which is really an unrifled portion of the barrel.

When comparing the power of one revolver caliber to another this odd system of assigning a length to barrels is of no consequence as we are still comparing apples to apples. When we try to compare the power of a revolver caliber to the power of a semi auto-pistol caliber the discrepancy in barrel length measuring systems often leads to incorrect conclusions.

I first became aware of this many years ago. I was comparing the velocity of Winchester 230 grain FMJ .45 ACP when fired in a Colt 1911 with a 5-inch barrel to the same load when fired in a Ruger Black Hawk with a 4 5/8-inch barrel. I assumed that the 1911 with a slightly longer barrel and lacking a cylinder gap would achieve a noticeably higher velocity than the same ammo when fired in the Ruger Black Hawk. I was very surprised to find that the Ruger turned in a higher average velocity. I decided to find out why.

The 1911 measured 4.8 inches from the breech to the muzzle. The Ruger measured approximately 6.5 inches from the breech to the muzzle. The Ruger had a full 1.7 inches more acceleration tube in which to achieve velocity than did the 1911. This was more than enough to offset any velocity loss from the cylinder gap and the supposed longer barrel of the 1911. The name of the barrel assigned to revolvers is indeed deceiving. I also noticed that the distance from the cartridge case mouth to the muzzle in the 1911 is approximately 4 inches. 

The distance from the cartridge case mouth to the muzzle of the Ruger is more than 5 inches.

I recently noticed a comparison between two firearms of the same caliber. The caliber was .327 Magnum. One of the firearms was a Bond Arms Derringer and the other was a Ruger revolver. Each of the firearms was said to have 3-inch barrels. Since the Derringer had no cylinder gap and the barrel length was the same, I would have expected the Derringer to obtain a higher velocity than the revolver. Not only did the derringer not produce higher velocity, the revolver obtained more than 100 FPS higher velocity than the Derringer. How could that be? Simple, the 3-inch barrel on the Derringer was measured from the breech to the muzzle. The 3-inch barrel in the revolver was measured from cylinder gap to the muzzle. From the breech to the muzzle the 3-inch revolver measured 4.7 inches. This additional 1.7 inches was sufficient to overcome any velocity loss from the revolvers cylinder gap plus 100 additional FPS. The distance from the cartridge case mouth to the muzzle of the Derringer was only 1.8 inches. The distance from the cartridge case mouth to the muzzle of the revolver was 3.6 inches. Exactly double. Remember that both firearms were using the exact same ammunition, yet the revolver achieved much higher velocity.

When comparing a semi auto pistol caliber to a revolver caliber the different system of measuring barrel length must be taken into consideration. For example, if we compare a .357 Magnum revolver cartridge and a .357 Sig cartridge by shooting them both in single shot pistols with 4-inch barrels, both barrels would be measured from the breech to the muzzle and they would be the same length. That would be an “apples to apples” comparison of power. However, the .357 Magnum would be losing almost 2 inches of acceleration tube as compared to firing it in a “4-inch” revolver which is almost 6 inches from breech to muzzle. Comparing a .357 Magnum in a 4-inch revolver which measures 5.7 inches from breech to muzzle against a .357 Sig auto pistol which measures 4 inches from breech to muzzle results in erroneous conclusions. A 2-inch difference in barrel length can change the velocity 100 to 200 FPS. 

At this point revolver fans start yelling about the revolver cylinder gap. Cylinder gaps differ. Some high-quality revolvers have a 1,000th inch cylinder gap which will generally result in a 15 FPS lose of velocity in a .357 Magnum. A more common, wider cylinder gap will of course result in a greater loss in velocity. Cylinder gap usually varies from 1 to 9 thousandths. This is an inherent weakness in the revolver design and is present in all revolvers that I am aware of. The fact is, all revolvers have cylinder gaps and the resulting lose in velocity must be accepted as part of evaluating the power of revolver cartridges unless you test them in single shot pistols and measure the barrel length from the breech to the muzzle. that is why most makers of revolver ammunition today test their ammunition in, and post velocity figures from, vented test barrels.

When comparing revolver caliber handguns to semi auto caliber handguns such as the .38 special to the .380 ACP or the .357 Magnum to the .357 Sig or the .357 Magnum to the 10 mm, those making the comparisons never consider that a 4-inch .357 Magnum revolver has 5.7 inches to obtain its velocity while a 4-inch .357 Sig has 3.7 inches to do so. That is a substantial difference. Two equal length barrels when measured using the same system will often put the Sig ahead of the Magnum. Shoot them both out of single shot pistols and the Sig will often be faster because both barrels would in fact be the same length. The Sig operates at higher pressure than the .357 Magnum. Part of the cartridge case of the Sig, being of larger diameter allows for a similar capacity to the longer Magnum case. 

For those who cry foul because the revolver cartridge case is longer reducing slightly the length of the acceleration tube, I am happy to give that one back to the revolver. What if we simply measure the acceleration tube as the distance from the case mouth to the muzzle in both the revolver and the auto pistol. This would usually put a 5.8-inch auto on equal terms with a 4-inch revolver.

When shooting the most popular bullet weight for self-defense in both the Magnum and the Sig (125 grain), from handguns with barrels that are really the same length, the Sig will usually produce slightly higher velocity and energy. When heavy bullets like the 180-grain are compared, the Magnum will produce higher velocity. These two calibers are in fact very similar in power. These facts are contrary to what most .357 revolver shooters believe but they are nevertheless true. Respected author Wiley Clapp reported the same findings several years ago and was accused of heresy. 

Revolver shooters can quote optimistic velocity and energy claims all day long. Many of these claims are based on 7.5-inch unvented barrels. If these numbers were obtained in a revolver, then note that the 7.5-inch revolver measures 9.2 inches from the breech to the muzzle. Firing a .357 Sig from a 9-inch barrel will again achieve the same or higher velocity as the .357 Magnum with the popular 125 grain bullets. 

Most civilians who carry a concealed .357 Magnum revolver are likely using 2, 2.5 or 3-inch barrels, yet they love to quote factory energy numbers for the .357 Magnum of 700 or 800-foot pounds. An Officer once told me that he carried a .357 magnum because he was getting almost 2,000 FPS velocity. His 110-grain .357 Magnum ammunition would indeed achieve almost than 2,000 FPS IN A 16 INCH CARBINE, not in his 2.5-inch S&W M-19. Again, my suggestion was for him to buy a chronograph. 

Some .357 Magnum ammunition will achieve high energy levels but not in a 2 or 3-inch revolver. Most .357 Magnum ammunition produced by major American manufacturers today, produce energy figures slightly below 500-foot pounds when chronographed from a 3-inch revolver. Sorry, but that is a fact which you can research for yourself. I have done so. 450 to 500-foot pounds of energy from a concealed carry handgun is a lot of power. But nearly all .357 Sig ammunition from major US ammo producers will exceed 500 Foot Pounds of energy when fired from a Glock 32 which has only 3.2 inches of rifling.

Many people who quote magnum energy levels are carrying .38 Special ammunition in their revolvers due to the recoil of a magnum load when fired in very light weight revolvers. Some will argue that the .38 special + P is almost as powerful a .357 magnum when comparing them in short barrels. This is simply not true. The difference is substantial. Test them yourself. I have done so.

In my experience, most people who carry a concealed .357 magnum revolver with full power magnum ammunition are carrying an all steel 3-inch barrel firearm. Very few people carry full power magnum ammo in a 2-inch light weight revolver. The revolver is rarely used in American LE today. The majority of those carrying a revolver for protection are concealed carry civilians. The majority of those carrying 2 to 3-inch barrels and are not using full power ammunition.

For these reasons the power of the .357 magnum when used for self-defense might best be examined from this perspective. By comparison my S&W “3-inch barrel” Model 66 is about the same size as my Glock 31. My 3-inch revolver is 4.7 inches from breech to muzzle and my 4.6-inch barreled Glock 31 is only 4.4 inches from the breech to the muzzle. These guns are very comparable in size, loaded weight and barrel length although the revolver does have a (.3-inch) advantage in actual barrel length. 

If we decided to measure the length of a semi auto pistol as the length of the rifling and the barrel length of a revolver as the distance from the breech to the muzzle and then compare velocities, everyone would agree that this is an unfair and biased comparison favoring the semi auto pistol calibers. Yet most people are quite happy to use this same invalid system in reverse. 

Comparing the actual barrel length of a .357 Magnum Revolver S&W Model 66:

The S&W M 66 3-inch barrel which is 5.7 inches from the breech to the muzzle (1.6-inches more than the Glock 22 or the Glock 31)

The S&W M 66 3-inch barrel which is 3.6 inches from the case mouth to the muzzle (.4 inches more than the Glock 22 or the Glock 31)

The S&W M 66 3-inch barrel which is 3 inches of rifling and forcing cone (only .2 inches less than the Glock 22 or the Glock 31)

The S&W M 66 3-inch barrel which is 5.7 inches from the breech to the muzzle (2.1-inches more than the Glock 23/Glock 32)

The S&W M 66 3-inch barrel which is 3.6 inches from the case mouth to the muzzle (.9-inches more than the Glock 23/Glock 32)

The S&W M 66 3-inch barrel which is 3 inches of rifling and forcing cone (.3 inches more than the Glock 23/Glock 32)

The Glock 22 and Glock 31 (.40 S&W and .357 Sig) auto pistols:

 

The Glock 22 and Glock 31 4.6-inch barrels which are 4.6 inches from the rear of the barrel hood to the muzzle 

The Glock 22 and Glock 31 4.6-inch barrel which are 4.1 inches from the breech to the muzzle (1.6 inches less than 3-inch revolver)

The Glock 22 and Glock 31 4.6-inch barrels which are 3.2 inches from the case mouth to the muzzle (.4-inches less than 3-inch revolver)

The Glock 22 and Glock 31 4.6-inch barrels which are 3.2 inches of rifling and forcing cone (.2-inches more than a 3-inch revolver)

Glock 23 and Glock 32 .40 S&W and .357 Sig auto pistols:

The Glock 23 and Glock 32 4.1-inch barrels which are 4.1 inches from the rear of barrel hood to the muzzle

The Glock 23 and Glock 32 4.1-inch barrels which are 3.6 inches from the breech to the muzzle (1.6 inches less than a 3-inch revolver)

The Glock 23 and Glock 32 4.1-inch barrels which are 2.7 inches from the case mouth to the muzzle (.9-inches less than a 3-inch revolver)

The Glock 23 and Glock 32 4.1-inch barrels which are 2.7 inches of rifling and forcing cone (.3-inches less than a 3-inch revolver)

The Glock 35 .40 and Glock 35 .357 conversion have 5.3 inch barrels:

The Glock 35 with a 5.3-inch barrel which is 3.9 inches from the case mouth to the muzzle (.3 inches more than a 3-inch revolver)

 

The Glock 35 with a 5.3-inch barrel which is 3.9 inches from the case mouth to the muzzle (equal to a 3.25-inch revolver)

The Glock 35 with a 5.3-inch barrel which is 3.9 inches from the case mount to the muzzle (.2 inches less than a 3.5-inch revolver)

The Glock 35 with a 5.3-inch barrel which is 3.9 inches from the case mouth to the muzzle (.7 inches less than a 4-inch revolver)

We are going to present some caliber comparisons after measuring both revolver and auto pistol barrel length using the same standard. Here are some direct “apples to apples” comparisons between .357 Magnum and .357 Sig, .357 Magnum and .40 S&W, .357 Magnum and 10mm, .357 Magnum and 9mm. We are not cherry picking these test results. We are including all similar data available to us at the time of this writing. Some of these velocities were obtained through our own testing and others were taken from the test results of respected people in the firearms industry. 

.40 S&W

Glock 27 3.42-inch barrel is 2.35 inches from the case mouth to the muzzle or .25 inches less barrel than the .357 Magnum Kimber revolver.

All tests are in calibrated ballistic gel with an FBI heavy clothing barrier.

Only loads which achieved a minimum of 400 Foot Pounds of energy are listed except 9 mm and .380 which are not capable of achieving 400 Foot Pounds of energy in a short barrel pistol except for 9mm +P+ or equivalent.

As Lucky Gunner testing tends to result in lower expansion and higher penetration than other credible testers, we have included loads which over penetrated or failed to consistently expand or both. No gimmick loads nor loads by specialty companies are listed. Only loads from major American companies such as Federal, Remington, Speer and Winchester are listed.

Of those (8) .40 loads which achieved at least 400 Foot Pounds from the short barrel of the Glock 27, six had excellent consistent expansion, one had good expansion on 4 of 5 rounds and one had poor expansion.

.40 Federal 155 grain HST.

Classic uniform expansion for all 5 projectiles 

Expansion .67 

Penetration 17.2-inches

1084 FPS 

404 Foot pounds of energy 

 

.40 Winchester 165 grain PDX-1

Excellent consistent expansion all 5 projectiles

Expansion .74

Penetration 14.6 inches

1066 FPS 

416 Foot Pounds of energy

 

.40 Hornady 155 grain XTP Custom 

Poor expansion

Expansion .49 

Penetration 22.4 inches

1101 FPS

417 Foot Pounds of energy

 

.40 Winchester 165 grain Ranger T-Series

Good expansion with 4 or 5 projectiles- this load has been awesome from a 4-inch barrel

Expansion .67 

Penetration 21.0 inches

1071 FPS

420 Foot Pounds of energy

 

.40 Hornady 165 grain Critical Defense

Good consistent expansion all 5 projectiles

Expansion .60

Penetration 16.6 inches

1075 FPS

423 Foot Pounds of energy

 

.40 Speer 155 grain 

Excellent consistent expansion all 5 projectiles 

Expansion .67

Penetration 16.3 inches

1,117 FPS

429 Foot Pounds of energy

 

.40 Winchester 165 grain Ranger Bonded

Excellent consistent expansion all 5 projectiles

Expansion .77

Penetration 14.7 inches

1098 FPS

442 Foot Pounds energy

 

.40 Remington 155 grain Golden Saber

Excellent consistent expansion all 5 projectiles 

Expansion .66

Penetration 19.6 inches

1,113 FPS

454 Foot Pounds of energy

 

The average energy of the eight .40 S&W cartridges listed here is 425.625 Foot Pounds 

That is 10.295 Foot Pounds more than the 6 .357 Magnum loads listed.

If we compare the best 6 .40 loads to the best 6 .357 Magnum loads the .40 obtained an average of 430.833 Foot Pounds of energy which is 15.50 more than the best 6 .357 Magnum loads listed. The .40 achieved this slightly higher velocity with approximately .25 inches less (actual) barrel length. 

If we compare the best .40 loads (in short barrels) to the best .45 ACP loads, we find that the .40 achieved an average of 8.6 Foot Pounds more energy than the .45 ACP all of which were +P loads.

.357 Magnum

Kimber K6s 2-inch barrel is 2.6 inches from the case mouth to the muzzle giving it .25 inches more actual barrel length than the Glock 27. Only loads achieving a minimum of 400 Foot Pounds of energy are listed.

Of the six loads which achieved a minimum of 400 Foot Pounds of energy 2 showed excellent expansion, 2 showed good expansion and 2 showed poor or no expansion.

.357 Magnum Speer 125 grain Gold Dot 

Poor Expansion

Expansion .36

Penetration 29.5 inches

1,200 FPS

400 Foot Pounds of energy

 

.357 Magnum Hornady 125 grain Critical Defense FTX

Good consistent expansion all 5 projectiles

Expansion .52

Penetration 15.3 inches

1208 FPS

405 Foot Pounds of energy

 

.357 Magnum Remington 125 grain SJHP 

Good consistent expansion all 5 projectiles

Expansion .64

Penetration 10.5 inches

1209 FPS

406 Foot Pounds of energy

 

.357 Magnum Hornady 158 grain XTP 

Good consistent expansion all 5 projectiles

Expansion .50

Penetration 21.6 inches

1082 FPS

411 Foot Pounds of energy

 

.357 Magnum Hornady 140 grain Lever Evolution FTX

Poor Expansion 

Expansion .43

Penetration 20.1 inches

1182 FPS

434 Foot Pounds of energy

 

.357 Magnum Remington 158 grain SJHP 

Good consistent expansion all 5 projectiles

Expansion .62

Penetration 14.2 inches

1115 FPS

436 Foot Pounds of energy

 

The average energy of these 6 .357 Magnum loads is 415.33 Foot Pounds

 

.45 ACP

The Kahr CW45 3.64-inch barrel is 2.74 inches from the case mouth to the muzzle.

All tests are in calibrated ballistic gel with an FBI heavy clothing barrier.

Only loads achieving a minimum of 400 Foot Pounds of energy are listed.

Of the nine loads that achieved a minimum of 400 Foot pounds of energy, 7 showed excellent expansion and 2 showed poor expansion.

 

.45 ACP Federal 230 grain Tactical Bonded +P

Excellent Expansion 

Expansion .86

Penetration 14.6 inches

887 FPS

402 Foot Pounds of energy

 

.45 ACP Federal 185 grain Hydra Shock +P

Poor Expansion

Expansion .59 only 3 of the 5 expanded properly

Penetration 18.8 inches

1,002 FPS

411 Foot Pounds of energy 

 

.45 ACP Hornady 200 grain XTP+P

Excellent expansion

Expansion .59

Penetration 18.1 inches

965 FPS

414 Foot Pounds of energy

 

.45 ACP 230 grain Winchester Ranger T-Series

Excellent expansion 

Expansion 1.00

Penetration 14.5 inches

900 FPS

414 Foot Pounds of energy

 

.45 ACP 230 grain Winchester Ranger T-Series +P

Excellent expansion 

Expansion .99

Penetration 14.5 inches

904 FPS

417 Foot Pounds of energy

 

45 ACP Hornady 230 grain XTP +P

Excellent expansion

Expansion .60

Penetration 18.6 inches

908 FPS

421 Foot pounds of energy

 

.45 ACP Hornady 220 grain Critical Duty +P

Poor expansion, bulged rather than expanded 

Expansion .58

Penetration 21.3 inches

934 FPS

426 Foot Pounds of energy

 

.45 ACP Remington 185 grain Golden Saber +P

Excellent expansion

Expansion .75

Penetration 15.5 inches

1019 FPS

427 Foot Pounds of energy

 

.45 ACP Speer 200 grain Gold Dot +P

Excellent Expansion 

Expansion .70

Penetration 13.8 inches

982 FPS

428 Foot Pounds of energy

 

The average energy of the six .357 Magnum loads listed is 417.77-foot pounds and the average of the top nine .45 loads listed is 422.16-foot pounds. This is 6.836 Foot Pounds more energy than the .357 Magnum best six loads.

 

.380 ACP

Glock 42 3.25- inch barrel which is only 2.3 inches from case mouth to muzzle

Listed are only loads which achieve a minimum of 175 Foot Pounds of energy. Of the 4 .380 ACP loads that achieved 175 Foot Pounds of energy only the Speer Gold Dot also showed excellent expansion in this testing format. Average 178.5 Foot Pounds of energy.

 

.380 ACP 99 grain Federal HST

Poor Expansion 

Expansion .35

Penetration 22.5 inches

893 FPS

175 Foot Pounds of energy

 

Note: This load has been tested through heavy clothing to expand to .60 caliber and penetrate approximately 10 to 10.5 inches by numerous credible ammunition testers including me. This round is sometimes criticized for over expansion. This is perhaps the only test I have seen where this load failed to expand. Not that it expanded too little, it did not expand at all. I find this result suspect. I tested this load again only a few days and despite the denim barrier, the expansion was perfect, a result that this cartridge Is known for.

 

 

.380 ACP 102 grain Remington

Poor Expansion 

Expansion .39

Penetration 19.5 inches

907 FPS

186 Foot Pounds of energy

Note: This bullet as loaded by Underwood at approximately 975 FPS (+P) from my Glock 42 expands to .60 and penetrates approximately 10.5 inches.

 

.380 ACP 90 grain Speer Gold Dot

Good expansion

Expansion .49

Penetration 11.0 inches

937 FPS

175 Foot Pounds of energy 

 

.380 ACP 95 grain Winchester Ranger T-Series

No expansion

Expansion .37

Penetration 21.9 inches

918 FPS

178 Foot Pounds of energy

 

9 mm

 

For 9 mm I am only listing loads that produced at least 350 Foot Pounds of energy from the S&W M&P Compact pistol with a 3.5-inch barrel which is in fact 2.7 inches from the case mouth to the muzzle. The average energy of these 6 loads is 371.5 Foot Pounds. Also note that only one of the six 9 mm loads to make the list was not a + P load.

 

9 mm Winchester 124 grain PDX1 +P

Expansion fair

Expansion .52

Penetration 19.6 inches

1142 FPS

359 Foot Pounds of energy

 

9 mm Federal 124 grain HST +P

Expansion consistent excellent 

Expansion .66

Penetration 18.3 inches

1168 FPS

376 Foot Pounds of energy

 

9 mm Hornady 135 grain Critical Duty +P

Expansion fair 

Expansion .47

Penetration 18.1 inches

1118 FPS

375 Foot Pounds of energy

 

9 mm Remington 124 grain Golden Saber +P

Expansion Poor with all 5 experiencing jacket separation

Expansion .43

Penetration 18.2 inches

1170 FPS

377 Foot Pounds of energy

 

9 mm Remington 124 grain Ultimate Defense

Expansion none 

Expansion .35

Penetration 19.8 inches

1152 FPS

365 Foot Pounds of energy

 

9 mm Speer 124 grain Gold Dot Short Barrel +P

Expansion fair 

Expansion .51

Penetration 18.2 inches

1160 FPS

371 Foot Pounds of energy

 

Note, only two non + P 9 mm loads achieved 350 Foot Pounds of energy in the short barrel

Glock 26. Only 2 of the 9 loads achieved excellent expansion and 2 achieved poor expansion.

 

.357 Sig

 

Glock 33 3.42-inch barrel is 2.35 inches from the case mouth to the muzzle or .25 inches less barrel than the .357 Magnum Kimber revolver. This next set of tests was velocity and energy only. These are all 5 shot averages as are the velocity tests throughout this article. It is noted that 5 loads tested from specialty ammo companies all achieved between 508 to 609 Foot Pounds of energy from the short-barreled Glock 33.

 

.357 Auto Federal 125 grain HST 

1325.33 FPS

488 Foot Pounds of energy

 

.357 Auto Winchester 125 grain Ranger Bonded

1318 FPS

482 Foot Pounds of energy

 

.357 Auto Federal 125 grain Premium 

1316 FPS

481 Foot Pounds of energy

 

.357 Auto UMC 125 grain FMJ

1311 FPS

477 Foot Pounds of energy

 

.357 Auto Winchester 125 grain FMJ

1311 FPS

477 Foot Pounds of energy

 

.357 Auto Winchester 125 grain PDX-1

1310 FPS

476 Foot Pounds of energy

 

These six .357 auto loads averaged 480.16 Foot Pounds. This compares to the 365.88-foot pounds of energy for the 9 mm, 417.77-foot pounds of energy for the .45 ACP +P, and 415.33 Foot Pounds of energy for the .357 Magnum.

 

 

Final average energy numbers: 

 

.357 Auto               480 .16 Ft Lbs.     

.40 S&W                 430.83 Ft Lbs.

.45 ACP +P              417.77 Ft. Lbs.

.357 Magnum        415.33 Ft Lbs.

9 mm                       365.88 Ft Lbs.

.380 ACP                 178.5 Ft Lbs.

 

Direct caliber comparison from short barrels

 

.40 S&W            430.83   Foot Pounds of Energy

9 mm +P            365.88   Foot Pounds of Energy

Difference           64.97   Foot Pounds of Energy

 

 

.357 Auto           480.16   Foot Pounds of Energy

.357 Magnum    415.33   Foot Pounds of Energy

 Difference           64.8    Foot Pounds of Energy

 

.357 Auto           480.16   Foot Pounds of Energy

9 mm                  365.88   Foot Pounds of Energy

Difference         114.38    Foot Pounds of Energy

 

9 mm                  365.88   Foot Pounds of Energy

.380 ACP           178.50    Foot Pounds of Energy

Difference         187.33    Foot Pounds of Energy

 

 

No doubt some will argue that comparing these calibers with longer barrels would change the relationship between them. No doubt this is true. The fact is, that people who are carrying a short barrel concealed carry .357 Magnum revolver with the belief that it is far more powerful than common concealed carry auto pistols calibers are simply fooling themselves.

 

The other issue is how we measure barrel length when we compare revolver power to semi auto pistol power. Most people do not consider that a 3-inch revolver has a 4.7-inch barrel when measured from muzzle to breech.

 

A .357 Magnum revolver with a six-inch barrel using, heavy bullets and full power ammunition is in a different category. Here we find high velocities, high energy levels and high-power factors. In a full-size revolver using full power ammunition the .357 Magnum achieves the power that many mistakenly believe can be had in their short barrel concealed carry revolvers using light weight projectiles and often reduced recoil ammunition. What makes a Magnum powerful is velocity, not the word Magnum stamped on the barrel. Dramatically reducing that velocity by using a short barrel puts the .357 Magnum in the same category as many common concealed carry calibers. Measuring the barrel length of revolvers and auto pistols differently can lead to further inaccuracies in evaluating and comparing calibers. 

In comparing popular .40 S&W, .45 ACP +P and .357 Sig (auto) loads we find that in typical concealed carry pistols they are at least as powerful as typical .357 Magnum concealed carry loads when fired in short barreled carry revolvers. We believe that with the information presented here we have proven this point. We have also made readers aware of the practice of using barrels of different lengths as if they were in fact the same length.

Larry and Stacey Mudgett
Marksmanship Matters