.357 snubbie compared to 9mm with 158gr [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : .357 snubbie compared to 9mm with 158gr


ithaca_deerslayer
11-22-2011, 11:03
On some other threads outside of caliber corner, people have said the balistic difference between .357 snubbie and compact 9mm are merely academic.

Instead of muddying up those threads (which were about other non-caliber issues), I thought I'd ask:

How fast does a short barreled 9mm throw a 158gr hunk of lead? And how does that compare to the .357 mag?

Heck, I'm not even a fan of the snubbie .357 because I prefer .38 special for less flash and recoil, but I don't buy the argument that .357 and 9 are the same.

Anyone got some numbers or an opinion?

You snubbie .357 guys are crazy, but you still bring an advantage to the table.
:)

OctoberRust
11-22-2011, 11:07
You snubbie .357 guys are crazy, but you still bring an advantage to the table.
:)

Yea, that advantage being lighting their attacker on fire with that big ole flame it throws out at the end of the barrel. :rofl:

Tiro Fijo
11-22-2011, 11:41
...How fast does a short barreled 9mm throw a 158gr hunk of lead? And how does that compare to the .357 mag?...


You're comparing apples to oranges. The only 9mm load I know of for 158 gr. is one by Fiocchi made for suppressed weapons. A better analysis would be short barrels firing the 124 gr. & 125 gr. respectively and the .357 wins hands down for those who can handle it and shoot it well.

http://www.ammunitiontogo.com/product_info.php/pName/50rds-9mm-fiocchi-158gr-subsonic-fmj-ammo


MOST people are better off with a 9mm for two reasons:

1. .357 Magnum snubbies with full house magnums are difficult to shoot well.

2. Because of the aforementioned they are going to need more shots.

dkf
11-22-2011, 11:46
The .357mag does lose a good bit of velocity fired from shorter barrels(around 2") The majority of factory loadings for the .357 are not up to max pressures however. I never saw a 158gr. 9mm loading. A 147gr. 9mm is going about 950fps out of a 4" barrel depending on the load. The energies between a factory 158gr .357mag out of a 2" barrel vs a 9mm 147gr out of a 4" barrel are close.

Warp
11-22-2011, 12:43
I think that, in general, people over estimate the power/velocity loss of a .357mag when using a short barrel.

Gunnut 45/454
11-22-2011, 12:50
dkf
Since when do compac 9mm's have 4" barrels? Where talking about compac 2.5 -3" barreled guns right. So then your looking at below 900 FPS in the 9mm. I get 950 easy out of my 2.5" SP101 with 158gr 357 Mag loads! I really get a good laugh every time this comes up the 9mm doesn't come close to the 357 mag in any respect nor barrel length.:supergrin:

janice6
11-22-2011, 13:03
I carry a 2 inch .357 Magnum snubby Rhino revolver. I also have a S & W 642 .38 Special. I get no muzzle flip from the Rhino. 5 shots fast, from the S & W, peeled the skin back in my thumb web.

I took a 10 year old boy shooting and he shot 30 rounds Of 125 gn Hornady SD HP from the Rhino and wasn't impressed by the recoil. The follow up shots from the Rhino are much faster then the S & W. He wanted to shoot the red dot .22 for fun.

He shot the Rhino as well as the .22, as the targets showed this.

I'm carrying the .357 Mag.


My point isd that you can carry and shoot the snubby's without problems if you choose the gun well.

barth
11-22-2011, 13:08
I haven't looked at 158 grain.

But I've got a S&W 640-1 357 2.125" barrel.
And did some research on 125 grain rounds out of the snubbie.

Looks like standard 1450 fps with 4" ends up around 1194 fps with 2".
The surprise was Remington Golden Saber mid range 1220 fps round from 4".
The Saber 125 gr still runs about 1090 fps out of a 2" barrel!
(S&W M&P 340 w 1.88" barrel)
That looks like the sweet spot for the snubbie to me.
Especially for controlled rapid fire.

I think of this load as being about a wash with a standard 124 9mm.
from a short barrel.

Ruger LC9 3.12" Barrel - Speer GDHP 124 gr 1,081 fps

fredj338
11-22-2011, 13:37
I think that, in general, people over estimate the power/velocity loss of a .357mag when using a short barrel.

Most factory 357mag 158grJHP loads will go 1100fps+ (chronographed from a 2 1/4" SP101). You might find a 9mm/147gr+P that goes 1000fps in a full size gun. The 145grWSTHP will do an honest 1100fps as well. Academic, maybe.:dunno:

9mm +p+
11-22-2011, 14:06
158's only? No comparison, 357 wins that fight hands down, most crono data that I've seen puts 158's out of a 2" 357 at about 1050/1100 fps no 9 will touch that. I carried a 357 SP for years until last summer, number of shots carried got my vote. I now carry a G-19.

ithaca_deerslayer
11-22-2011, 14:14
158's only? No comparison, 357 wins that fight hands down, most crono data that I've seen puts 158's out of a 2" 357 at about 1050/1100 fps no 9 will touch that. I carried a 357 SP for years until last summer, number of shots carried got my vote. I now carry a G-19.

I guess you can look at any grains for a comparison, but I'm thinking of 158. I've always thought the .357 throws them heavier and harder than the 9mm.

JimBianchi
11-22-2011, 14:33
I have wanted to do this write-up all week, now is my chance.

I just did a side-by-side range test with my Kahr MK9 (6+1), K9 (7+1) and my Taurus 617 7shot 357mag.

I used Ranger 127+p+ 9mm and Remington 125gr JSP 357mag for direct comparison, and a variety of WWB 9mm and 38SP for plinking and target practice.

I was trying to do an apples to apples comparison using 127 and 125. With the ballistics of these two rounds, I got as close as I could.

The Taurus 617 with 357mag is a boomer. It weights 28oz, 2.5in barrel, it is fat and harder to conceal than I like. Its cylinder is a little bigger than a SW N frame, but over all, it is an N frame snub nose in size. The grip is excellent and easy to get a good grip on from the draw.

While I like to shoot it, it is a pain to conceal. Pocket carry is difficult because if it's length and hammer spur did hang up when I tried to pocket draw. Follow up shots are a bit slower than I like, but training would improve it I am sure.

Multiple target engagement is quick and accurate, but reloading is slow. One of the revolvers cylinders was sticking on the eject, causing a shell to hang up. A slight honing with a fine polishing cloth would fix it. DA trigger was very good, sights are nothing to brag about, but a as point shooter, this in not an issue for me.

I haven't used speedloaders in years, I could learn to be fast, but the loaded speedloader is still quite large and bulky. But they work well.

On an important note: Even with plugs and muffs, this is a loud gun. The concussion and flame are impressive. I would not what to anywhere down range when this thing gets shot. If the bullet doesn't kill them, the boom and flame will.

The MK9 with 127 +p+ is always a fine shooter. The little gun is a fan favorite for a reason. Sights are excellent, (But not used by me) reloading is quick and spare mags can be 6,7 or 8 without an issue. 6+1, 3in barrel, weights 24ozs, with an empty mag.

It is a boomer with the 127+p+ but easy to control and follow-up are a very fast and accurate. The grip is small, two fingers only, but from IWB or from the pocket, I have trained myself to be 100% reliable. Multi-target engagement can be headshots if I want. Very accurate little gun. I have had this gun for 6 years and it is a daily carry in the summer. I have a lot of experience with it, so my opinion is tainted.

The Kahr K9 is a great shooter, I should have bought one sooner than last year. I have only put about 1K down the pipe and have yet to carry it. But at the range it always impresses me. The grip is completely different material than the MK9, more "grippy" and sticky, a real PLUS! At 26ozs (with empty mag) it is very light for a 7+1 gun with a 3.5in barrel.

I actually shoot this gun as well as my old favorite MK9, maybe even better. So freak'n fast, accurate, and 100% reliable. The grip size is prefect for my hand. 127+p+ gave me no issues, recoil was mild and the grip is a full three fingers and easy from the IWB or pocket, but the gun is little long for most pockets.

This is a perfect gun for IWB, very skinny, completely disappears in the Crossbreed-knock off I have. Just like the MK9, you could forget you are carrying it.

Reloading is quick and can be 7 or 8rd mags, a big plus.

My conclusion: The small 6+1 9mm Kahr MK9 offers a tiny, thin package with fast reloads and the option of pocket carry, something the 357mag 7shot is way to big for.

From a holster, the three guns are more equal, except for the reloading where the Kahr guns shine.

If I had to pick one only, it would be the MK9 with the K9 a close second. The revolver is going to remain back-up a house gun (G30 13+1 is primary) for now. I like the 617, but I love the Kahrs.

ithaca_deerslayer
11-22-2011, 14:55
I have wanted to do this write-up all week, now is my chance.
.

That is a nice write up, but is kinda buried in the caliber corner. Maybe carry issues would give it better exposure.

I'd be interested in a shooting test between them. Pick the material, like a couple phone books or something. Shoot from each, then compare the results.

Does the .357 penetrate deeper, and with a larger hole? Does it set the phone books on fire?

Personally, I like the Kahr PM9, because it weighs less. And the S&W 642 weighs even less (when both are fully loaded). But the Kahr certainly is the more accurate between those two in my hands. By a lot with practical shooting. In extra slow fire, not really that much difference.

Berto
11-22-2011, 14:56
Samson and a few others did load a 9x19mm 158gr for suppressed SMG use.
The hottest chrono numbers I've seen ran 940fps from a SIG P210. It's very tough to push the 158gr in the tiny 9x19 case without pressure spikes.

In comparison, the best 158gr .38sp +P will do 1040fps from a 1 and 7/8 J frame.

The typical 158gr .357mag runs 950-1100fps in a snubby and the hot loads like Buffalo Bore approach 1250-1300fps.

The hottest heavy 9mm is also Buffalo Bore 147gr +P+, runs 1135fps from a G26, still behind the .38sp +p 158gr from the same maker in a 3" sp101 at 1145fps.

9mm strengths lie with light to medium weight (115-124gr) ammo, where it can approximate snubby .357mag sometimes, but the bigger case of the .38sp and .357mag enable them both to walk away with 158gr and up.

Landric
11-22-2011, 16:01
I've done a little bit of testing on this issue. Here are my results, the .357 Magnum used in the testing was a Ruger SP101 2 1/4" DAO, the 9x19mm, a HK P7.

.357 Speer Gold Dot 125 grain, Ave. 1242 fps, 428 ft-lbs energy
.357 Federal 357B 125 grain JHP, Ave. 1293 fps, 464 ft-lbs energy
.357 Federal Hydrashok 158 grain, Ave. 1130 fps, 448 ft-lbs energy
.357 Handload, 200 grain Lyman 358430 RNL, Ave. 1057 fps, 496 ft-lbs energy

9x19mm Speer Gold Dot 124 grain (+P), Ave. 1139 fps, 357 ft-lbs of energy

The often misunderstood and quoted "ballistics by the inch" website's data cannot directly be related to velocities obtained out of revolvers. This is because the TC Contender used in the tests had 1 1/2" of the 2" barrel taken up by the .357 chamber, whereas a real .357 revolver with a 2" barrel actually has 2" of barrel in addition to the chamber.

dkf
11-22-2011, 19:02
dkf
Since when do compac 9mm's have 4" barrels? Where talking about compac 2.5 -3" barreled guns right. So then your looking at below 900 FPS in the 9mm. I get 950 easy out of my 2.5" SP101 with 158gr 357 Mag loads! I really get a good laugh every time this comes up the 9mm doesn't come close to the 357 mag in any respect nor barrel length.:supergrin:

I agree .357mag is step above 9mm. The 3.5" and 4" barreled pistols are a popular primary concealed carry gun as are the stubby .357mag revolvers like the Ruger LCR. A .357mag Revolver with a 4" barrel is quite a bit longer than a 9mm pistol with a 4" barrel, I suppose thats why I compared as I did.

The often misunderstood and quoted "ballistics by the inch" website's data cannot directly be related to velocities obtained out of revolvers. This is because the TC Contender used in the tests had 1 1/2" of the 2" barrel taken up by the .357 chamber, whereas a real .357 revolver with a 2" barrel actually has 2" of barrel in addition to the chamber.

I completely forgot about that when I posted it. My bad.

CanyonMan
11-22-2011, 23:45
I'll stick with the 357mag any day over a 9mm (yes, I own, load for, and shoot both) I have yet to see a 9mm do what a 357mag can.

One of my 357mags, an SP101 with the 3 1/16th" barrel is one of the best shooters I own. With the fed/rem 125gr JHP's, this length barrel (3")has had all the press and street creds over a 'long span of years' to satisfy the curiosity of those who wonder "if it works." And plenty of years worth of good results with 158gr as well.

I also like my 4" Smith 686. I don't own any 9mm in the safe, that will take deer at out to 100yds and hit as hard as the 357mag. My 45acp is EDC "in town." But man that little SP101 in 357mag is a good belly gun, and I got 'total confidence' in it for SD against the largest of felons. Nothing scientific about this post. I just have seen to many nasty wounds made by the 357mag.

A closing thought as well, is that add to even that little SP101 3", my 180gr Hard Cast hand loads, and it too, becomes a really nice little packin gun in the woods for cougars and such. I would not depend on a 9mil for that, although it can, yes. 'But,' not as ideal as a handful of hard hiting 357 mag HC.


FWIW.. :wavey:




Good shooting !










CM

cowboy1964
11-23-2011, 00:06
Most factory 357mag 158grJHP loads will go 1100fps+ (chronographed from a 2 1/4" SP101). You might find a 9mm/147gr+P that goes 1000fps in a full size gun. The 145grWSTHP will do an honest 1100fps as well. Academic, maybe.:dunno:

HST 147+P achieves an honest 1050 fps from a Glock 19.

Even if the 158gr 357 can hit 1100 or more from a 2 1/4" barrel, that is only 11 gr and 50 fps more than the 147 9mm. Close enough to call them the same.

cowboy1964
11-23-2011, 00:10
Guys, this thread was about 357 Magnum out of short barrels (2" or less). Yes, out of a 4" barrel of course the Magnum bests a 9mm. Duh.

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/357mag.html

CanyonMan
11-23-2011, 00:16
Guys, this thread was about 357 Magnum out of short barrels (2" or less). Yes, out of a 4" barrel of course the Magnum bests a 9mm. Duh.

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/357mag.html


Probably reffering to me hoss... sorry ! 3" ain't much different when your talking 35fps per inch. ;)


Carry on.







CM

Warp
11-23-2011, 00:26
Guys, this thread was about 357 Magnum out of short barrels (2" or less). Yes, out of a 4" barrel of course the Magnum bests a 9mm. Duh.

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/357mag.html



The often misunderstood and quoted "ballistics by the inch" website's data cannot directly be related to velocities obtained out of revolvers. This is because the TC Contender used in the tests had 1 1/2" of the 2" barrel taken up by the .357 chamber, whereas a real .357 revolver with a 2" barrel actually has 2" of barrel in addition to the chamber.


And there you have it.


The end result is .357 magnum > 9.19, in terms of ballistics/performance. It's that simple.

CanyonMan
11-23-2011, 00:29
dkf
Since when do compac 9mm's have 4" barrels? Where talking about compac 2.5 -3" barreled guns right. So then your looking at below 900 FPS in the 9mm. I get 950 easy out of my 2.5" SP101 with 158gr 357 Mag loads! I really get a good laugh every time this comes up, the 9mm doesn't come close to the 357 mag in any respect nor barrel length.:supergrin:


:agree:

That was the point I thought I was making ! HA.





CM

fredj338
11-23-2011, 00:29
I've done a little bit of testing on this issue. Here are my results, the .357 Magnum used in the testing was a Ruger SP101 2 1/4" DAO, the 9x19mm, a HK P7.

.357 Speer Gold Dot 125 grain, Ave. 1242 fps, 428 ft-lbs energy
.357 Federal 357B 125 grain JHP, Ave. 1293 fps, 464 ft-lbs energy
.357 Federal Hydrashok 158 grain, Ave. 1130 fps, 448 ft-lbs energy
.357 Handload, 200 grain Lyman 358430 RNL, Ave. 1057 fps, 496 ft-lbs energy

9x19mm Speer Gold Dot 124 grain (+P), Ave. 1139 fps, 357 ft-lbs of energy

The often misunderstood and quoted "ballistics by the inch" website's data cannot directly be related to velocities obtained out of revolvers. This is because the TC Contender used in the tests had 1 1/2" of the 2" barrel taken up by the .357 chamber, whereas a real .357 revolver with a 2" barrel actually has 2" of barrel in addition to the chamber.
They are close though as revolvers have cyl gaps the TC does not. You can lose quite a lot ove vel in that little jump.:dunno:

fredj338
11-23-2011, 00:31
HST 147+P achieves an honest 1050 fps from a Glock 19.

Even if the 158gr 357 can hit 1100 or more from a 2 1/4" barrel, that is only 11 gr and 50 fps more than the 147 9mm. Close enough to call them the same.

Maybe, but the SD of the 158gr is higher, more vel, more penetration & expansion, so maybe. Then there is the 357sig. An honest 1200fps w/ a 147gr XTP & it's smaller than my M66.:supergrin:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v703/fredj338/357mags.jpg

Warp
11-23-2011, 00:42
Guys, this thread was about 357 Magnum out of short barrels (2" or less). Yes, out of a 4" barrel of course the Magnum bests a 9mm. Duh.

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/357mag.html

They are close though as revolvers have cyl gaps the TC does not. You can lose quite a lot ove vel in that little jump.:dunno:

Uh...the cylinder gap doesn't cost you the difference between a 0.5" barrel and a 2" barrel.

.357mag > 9mm

Warp
11-23-2011, 00:43
HST 147+P achieves an honest 1050 fps from a Glock 19.

Even if the 158gr 357 can hit 1100 or more from a 2 1/4" barrel, that is only 11 gr and 50 fps more than the 147 9mm. Close enough to call them the same.

Why are you comparing a 4" semi auto with a snub nose revolver?

BTW: My 158gr 357* can hit 1400 from a 3". That craps all over 9mm

*Just a standard buffalo bore round

ithaca_deerslayer
11-23-2011, 08:28
the 9x19mm, a HK P7.

...
9x19mm Speer Gold Dot 124 grain (+P), Ave. 1139 fps, 357 ft-lbs of energy



And that's even a 4" barrel, right? So you are definitely giving the 9mm a chance, and your .357 numbers still come out better!

Thanks :)

ithaca_deerslayer
11-23-2011, 08:44
HST 147+P achieves an honest 1050 fps from a Glock 19.

Even if the 158gr 357 can hit 1100 or more from a 2 1/4" barrel, that is only 11 gr and 50 fps more than the 147 9mm. Close enough to call them the same.

It might all be in the interpretation, but to me those numbers are not close enough to call the same.

The small revolver conceals better than the Glock 19 (my opinion based on how my 642 conceals better than my Glock 26), and if in .357 it pushes a bullet that is both heavier and faster.

Again, I'm not a fan of the .357 snubbie. I have a .357 6" for hunting, but only 2 snubbies and they are both .38. But still, when this question of the 9mm versus .357 comes up, especially as relates to small carry guns, I can see why the .357 guys make their pick.

We can talk about platform differences. How something like a Kahr PM9 with a 3" barrel is the similar size and weight to a snubbie, and how it shoots more accurately in most hands. And how it carries 6+1 and has quicker reloads. And how it has less felt recoil. Those are all real advantages.

But it does not push as heavy of a bullet as fast as the .357 magnum snubbie does. That's why I started this thread, to get opinions on that. Seems as though everyone agrees that is true.

Any disagreement appears to just be the meaning of that difference. But at least we agree it is there :)

Gunnut 45/454
11-23-2011, 11:00
CanyonMan
We are birds of the same feather on this one, other then my(wifes) SP101 2.5" my other carry gun is P345 45 ACP. For woods carry I just hoslter up with the Ruger BH 7.5"! The only 9mm I own is the 380 ACP (9mm Kurz)!:supergrin:

CanyonMan
11-23-2011, 14:24
CanyonMan
We are birds of the same feather on this one, other then my(wifes) SP101 2.5" my other carry gun is P345 45 ACP. For woods carry I just hoslter up with the Ruger BH 7.5"! The only 9mm I own is the 380 ACP (9mm Kurz)!:supergrin:


Yes sir cousin ! ;)


Stay safe amigo..





CM

fastbolt
11-23-2011, 15:22
I thought this question was settled years ago when revolvers were still found in duty holsters and folks were choosing to carry the 2 1/2", 2 3/4" & 3" .357's on their own time. :dunno:

Enough rounds of the available commercial loads of that time were run through enough of the popular guns (S&W, Colt & Ruger) of the time to produce some results that were widely published in magazine articles of the day.

Bottom line? The 2 1/2" snubbie Magnum still produced velocities better than those produced by the 4" .38 loads of the day.

Then, there's the whole heavier and faster aspect of the Magnum loads compared to what was being run in the 9mm's.

Fast forward to today? We have more efficient loads and bullet designs in both 9mm, .38 Spl & even .357Magnum.

The .357 Magnum is not an obsolete defensive cartridge, although the revolver has been supplanted in "service usage" by the semiauto pistol.

The introduction of the ultra light Magnum revolvers with barrel lengths running just under and over 2" has given the venerable Magnum round a real popularity boost, as has the introduction of some specialty loads by smaller ammunition manufacturers.

The "downside" to this is that the recoil forces and muzzle blast make these diminutive lightweight pocket cannons very difficult for most folks to shoot rapidly, controllably, accurately and effectively.

Personally, while I've used one or another Airlite or M&P 340 to demonstrate how they can be used to make fast & accurate shot-strings at distances running 2-11+ yards, I tend to prefer carrying mine loaded with one or another +P load. Why? Because I can make even easier & faster accurate hits using the +P loads ... I carry them in my other .38 J-frames rated for a diet of +P ... and that way my speedloaders & speedstrips can all remain loaded with ammunition that will fit in all my assorted 5-shot snubs.

Besides, using the Magnum loads for much of my training/practice/quals is harder on me than using the standard pressure and +P .38 loads. ;)

Now, when I step up in overall weight to my all-steel 5-shot SP101 DAO 2.25", or a M66 2 1/2" 6-shot snub, I can shoot Magnum loads all day long. The last time I took my 66 snub to the range, shooting it at ranges covering 2-80 yds, using bullet weights running from light to fairly heavier (180gr) for the Magnum cartridge, made me remember why I used to enjoy shooting my assorted .357's all those years ago (when I owned and carried an assortment of them).

I really wish I'd kept those blued & stainless Ruger Security & Speed-Sixes with the short barrels. Letting those snub Magnums slip away has to rank among some of the dumbest things I did as a young man. (Fortunately, I kept a nice 4" Service-Six Heavy Barrel that's been customized & tuned a bit. :) )

Don't mistake my comments to make it seem as though I disparage the 9mm guns in 3-4" barrel lengths, because I don't. I own 5 compact/subcompact 9's and like them just fine.

I also think that the excellent Winchester RA9TA 127gr +P+ (which has run 1151fps out of a 3" CS9 such as the one I own) probably produces enough velocity, and uses a proven bullet design, to make it a useful alternative choice in my 3-3 1/2" 9's (when I'm not using the 124gr +P non-bonded Golden Sabre). I've sometimes thought that the RA9TA load seems to produce similar velocities as what's been revealed to occur with some of the better Magnum ammunition fired from 2 1/2" snub revolvers.

Good enough for my needs.

Of course, despite what was once popular to read in magazine articles of the 80's, I don't consider it quite correct to simply say, "velocity is everything". :tongueout:

There are other things to consider, as well, I'd think ... or else we probably wouldn't be hearing of how through & through hits by non-fragmenting 5.56 rounds, fired from long guns, sometimes may not "instantly stop" someone hit by 1 or 2 rounds, or how sometimes even hits by 7.62 rounds might hit & exit and leave someone on their feet, with the ability to continue to perform volitional actions.

There's the improved designs and wider velocity windows involved with some of the better ammunition being produced nowadays that can have an influence in how we consider defensive ammunition to offer "effectiveness" & "performance" in different potential situations and circumstances.

It's still just a handgun chambered in one of the commonly found defensive (and hunting) calibers. It's velocity, and potential ballistic effectiveness, can be adversely influenced by decreasing barrel length. I remember when service revolvers were popular in 5-6" length, but the 4" length was felt to be "handier" and easier to carry in a working belt holster, and yet still possessed enough length to retain power and practical accuracy (sight radius).

The 2 1/2" - 3" guns were further compromises that offered even better portability and carry convenience, and although they gave up some velocity in barrel length, they still had enough of a velocity increase over the .38 Spl duty rounds (even in +P), among equivalent bullet weight loads, to be a superior choice ... presuming the shooter was skilled enough to withstand the increased muzzle blast & whip/torque generated by the Magnum loads.

I certainly wouldn't presume to consider a skilled revolver shooter to be ill-armed with a Magnum snub revolver, especially if the shooter took advantage of some of the better loads offered in the caliber nowadays.

Just my thoughts.

cowboy1964
11-23-2011, 17:08
Why are you comparing a 4" semi auto with a snub nose revolver?

BTW: My 158gr 357* can hit 1400 from a 3". That craps all over 9mm

Read the original post. The thread was about a snubbie .357 (2") vs a "compact" 9mm auto. A "compact" Glock is 4".

What is the fps for Buffalo Bore's 158gr numbers for a 1 7/8" barrel? 3" is as short as they go on their web site.

Warp
11-23-2011, 17:12
Read the original post. The thread was about a snubbie .357 (2") vs a "compact" 9mm auto. A "compact" Glock is 4".

What is the fps for Buffalo Bore's 158gr numbers for a 1 7/8" barrel? I don't see them listed.

Which model revolver with a 1 7/8" barrel are you referring to?

cowboy1964
11-23-2011, 17:15
Which model revolver with a 1 7/8" barrel are you referring to?

Make that 2-2.25" then. Whatever a "snubbie .357" is.

Don't even know why I'm even worried about ballistics. The disadvantages of a hot 357 in such a short barrel make it a no-go for most people.

Those Buffalo Bore numbers are WAY faster than what most 158gr ammo achieves. Like 150-200 fps more. Once again:

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/357mag.html

Warp
11-23-2011, 17:30
Make that 2-2.25" then. Whatever a "snubbie .357" is.

Don't even know why I'm even worried about ballistics. The disadvantages of a hot 357 in such a short barrel make it a no-go for most people.

Those Buffalo Bore numbers are WAY faster than what most 158gr ammo achieves. Like 150-200 fps more. Once again:

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/357mag.html

Once again:

I've done a little bit of testing on this issue. Here are my results, the .357 Magnum used in the testing was a Ruger SP101 2 1/4" DAO, the 9x19mm, a HK P7.

.357 Speer Gold Dot 125 grain, Ave. 1242 fps, 428 ft-lbs energy
.357 Federal 357B 125 grain JHP, Ave. 1293 fps, 464 ft-lbs energy
.357 Federal Hydrashok 158 grain, Ave. 1130 fps, 448 ft-lbs energy
.357 Handload, 200 grain Lyman 358430 RNL, Ave. 1057 fps, 496 ft-lbs energy

9x19mm Speer Gold Dot 124 grain (+P), Ave. 1139 fps, 357 ft-lbs of energy

The often misunderstood and quoted "ballistics by the inch" website's data cannot directly be related to velocities obtained out of revolvers. This is because the TC Contender used in the tests had 1 1/2" of the 2" barrel taken up by the .357 chamber, whereas a real .357 revolver with a 2" barrel actually has 2" of barrel in addition to the chamber.



You are not making an accurate comparison.

Warp
11-23-2011, 17:36
Not to mention the fact that comparing a snub nose 1 7/8" .357 to a Glock 19 isn't a very apt comparison either, due to size. A Glock 26 would probably be more appropriate

unit1069
11-23-2011, 19:53
I don't know of any 9mm pistols with barrels less than 3"; I do know that the 2" barreled .357 Magnum gives up a whole lot of its power and recoil is reputed to be brutal.

Given a choice between a 9mm semi-automatic with 3.5" barrel and a 2" .357 Magnum I'll take the 9mm pistol, figuring manageability and capacity count for something in self-defense against human predators.

The shortest .357 Magnum I'd consider is the 3 1/16" Ruger SP-101, a very fine revolver. With that length barrel and longer .357 Magnum runs away with ballistics comparisons and you've got a gun that you can reasonably handle shooting that kind of power.

Tiro Fijo
11-23-2011, 20:38
I don't know of any 9mm pistols with barrels less than 3"...


SIG p290 = 2.9". I love mine!! Shoots as good as a p228 to 15 yds. if you can hold it.

Landric
11-24-2011, 07:31
I don't know of any 9mm pistols with barrels less than 3"; I do know that the 2" barreled .357 Magnum gives up a whole lot of its power and recoil is reputed to be brutal.

Given a choice between a 9mm semi-automatic with 3.5" barrel and a 2" .357 Magnum I'll take the 9mm pistol, figuring manageability and capacity count for something in self-defense against human predators.

The shortest .357 Magnum I'd consider is the 3 1/16" Ruger SP-101, a very fine revolver. With that length barrel and longer .357 Magnum runs away with ballistics comparisons and you've got a gun that you can reasonably handle shooting that kind of power.

I don't really know about that. The Federal Hydrashok 158 grain .357 averaged 1130 fps out of my 2 1/4" SP101 and 1165 fps out of my 3 1/16" SP101. I'm not sure I would say that is "running away with ballistics". At the same time, I can't tell much of a difference between shooting the 2 1/4" and 3 1/16" SP101s. I carry the 2 1/4 because it is much easier to pocket carry, my usual method of carry for a small revolver.

As for lighter bullets, the Speer Gold Dot 125 grain Magnum averaged 1242 fps out of the 2 1/4" SP101, while it did 1392 fps average out of a 4" S&W 681 (I don't have any data on the lighter bullets out of the 3" SP101), while the Federal 357B 125 grain SJHP did 1293 fps out of the snubbie SP101 and 1428 fps out of the 4" 681. I expect one would probably see about 1350 fps out of a 3" SP101 shooting the Federal 357B.

Next time I do some chronograph work I am going to try shooting some various ammunition out of my Glock 26 and see how that compares to the SP101 snubbie. I think I still have some 115 grain (+P+) 9mm hanging around. It will be interesting to see how that compares to .357 ballistics.

Tiro Fijo
11-24-2011, 12:31
http://www.snubnose.info/docs/38-snub_vs_357-snub.htm

ADK_40GLKr
11-24-2011, 13:14
dkf
Since when do compac 9mm's have 4" barrels? Where talking about compac 2.5 -3" barreled guns right. So then your looking at below 900 FPS in the 9mm. I get 950 easy out of my 2.5" SP101 with 158gr 357 Mag loads! I really get a good laugh every time this comes up the 9mm doesn't come close to the 357 mag in any respect nor barrel length.:supergrin:

This data is directly from the Glock website

Note barrel length.

GLOCK 19 9x19


* *
CALIBER
9x19
SYSTEM
Safe Action
WEIGHT
595 g / 20.99 oz.
LOADED (~)
850 g / 29.98 oz.

LENGTH
174 mm / 6.85 in.
HEIGHT
127 mm / 5.00 in. MAG. CAPACITY
Standard: 15
OPTIONAL
17 / 19 / 33

WIDTH
30 mm / 1.18 in.
BARREL HEIGHT
32 mm / 1.26 in. TRIGGER PULL
2.5 kg / 5.5 lbs.
TRIGGER TRAVEL
12.5 mm / 0.5 in.

LINE OF SIGHT
153 mm / 6.02 in.
BARREL LENGTH
102 mm / 4.02 in. BARREL RIFLING
right hand, hexagonal
LENGTH OF TWIST
250 mm / 9.84 in.

Berto
11-24-2011, 13:43
Make that 2-2.25" then. Whatever a "snubbie .357" is.

Don't even know why I'm even worried about ballistics. The disadvantages of a hot 357 in such a short barrel make it a no-go for most people.

Those Buffalo Bore numbers are WAY faster than what most 158gr ammo achieves. Like 150-200 fps more. Once again:

http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/357mag.html

Typically a revolver with less than 3" barrel is considered a 'snubby.'


ETA: You will see some overlap of 9mm and .357mag short barrel with lighter bullets since 9mm is at it's most efficient here, while .357mag is not, but heavy bullets bring both .38sp and .357mag into an area 9mm struggles with.

Warp
11-24-2011, 22:24
This data is directly from the Glock website

Note barrel length.

GLOCK 19 9x19


That isn't really a good cite. Companies make all kinds of claims. Just because a company labels a gun as "compact" doesn't mean that when people talk about compact pistol vs snub nose revolvers that gun is an apples to apples comparison. This often comes up with holsters. Just because the manufacturer says it's a "level 2 retention" doesn't mean it truly is.

bogey3737
11-24-2011, 22:47
I don't know of any 9mm pistols with barrels less than 3"; I do know that the 2" barreled .357 Magnum gives up a whole lot of its power and recoil is reputed to be brutal.

Given a choice between a 9mm semi-automatic with 3.5" barrel and a 2" .357 Magnum I'll take the 9mm pistol, figuring manageability and capacity count for something in self-defense against human predators.


^ This...

Firing .357 snub with full power loads in a room / car without hearing protection is like holding a flashbang in your hand...

Landric
11-25-2011, 08:51
^ This...

Firing .357 snub with full power loads in a room / car without hearing protection is like holding a flashbang in your hand...

I've been near by an exploding flash bang (outside, but still), I can't say I would compare a .357 snubbie to it. No question, however, that it would be loud. Still, there is some question as to whether or not one would actually even notice the blast in a real self-defense situation. I got attacked by a dog about five years ago. I shot it three times with my Glock 22. I heard the shots, but they sounded very distant and not at all loud. My ears didn't ring afterword and I had no trouble hearing right afterword, unlike my experiences shooting without ear protection when not under stress. I can imagine that shooting a person in self-defense is a lot more stressful than shooting a dog. So, would the muzzle blast be an issue? Who knows, but I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't.

bogey3737
11-25-2011, 12:07
I've been near by an exploding flash bang (outside, but still), I can't say I would compare a .357 snubbie to it. No question, however, that it would be loud. Still, there is some question as to whether or not one would actually even notice the blast in a real self-defense situation. I got attacked by a dog about five years ago. I shot it three times with my Glock 22. I heard the shots, but they sounded very distant and not at all loud. My ears didn't ring afterword and I had no trouble hearing right afterword, unlike my experiences shooting without ear protection when not under stress. I can imagine that shooting a person in self-defense is a lot more stressful than shooting a dog. So, would the muzzle blast be an issue? Who knows, but I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't.

Shooting in a confined space vs. outdoors is a pretty big difference...

barth
11-25-2011, 12:52
With new high tech SD ammo these days muzzle blast has been greatly reduced.
Especially for snubbies. Fast burning, low flash, gunpowder is standard fare.
I just shot 6 brands of 357 Magnum SD ammo out of my S&W 640-1 (2.125" barrel).
And was really surprised at the lack of flash from these new SD rounds.

Landric
11-26-2011, 08:05
Shooting in a confined space vs. outdoors is a pretty big difference...

Of course it is, but comparing the effects of a flashbang to a snubbie revolver is simply not realistic.

Warp
11-26-2011, 12:31
Of course it is, but comparing the effects of a flashbang to a snubbie revolver is simply not realistic.

True.

Flashbangs are, what, 168-175 db or so if you believe the manufacturer. Your little .357 will not match that.

bogey3737
11-26-2011, 21:24
True.

Flashbangs are, what, 168-175 db or so if you believe the manufacturer. Your little .357 will not match that.

Absolutely admit to hyperbole...but lighting off a .357 snub in a tight space with 125 gr Federals / Remingtons will rock your world. I've shot my 640 in a tight indoor lane with Federals...and it was bad enough...can't imagine doing that sitting in my vehicle...

Landric
11-27-2011, 07:46
Absolutely admit to hyperbole...but lighting off a .357 snub in a tight space with 125 gr Federals / Remingtons will rock your world. I've shot my 640 in a tight indoor lane with Federals...and it was bad enough...can't imagine doing that sitting in my vehicle...

I understand what you are saying. My point was that if you are actually shooting under extreme stress, you are unlikely to notice. For regular shooting ear protection solves the problem.

barth
11-27-2011, 08:32
I understand what you are saying. My point was that if you are actually shooting under extreme stress, you are unlikely to notice. For regular shooting ear protection solves the problem.

I fired my short barrel 40 Glock G27, with 1150 fps 155 gr Speer GDHP LE ammo,
in a 10x10 closed room with no ear protection.
I was shocked at how not loud is was.
No ringing ears, nothing.
Adrenaline is a funny thing.

Now my 3.5" barrel 40 is no Magnum.
But a 1450 fps 125gr 357 is only going about 1200 fps from my 2" snubbie.
I don't know if this new low flash, low recoil, gun powder is quieter as well?
And My 640-1 is louder than my 40.

But I'm still thinking the sound issue is highly overrated.
Like shooting in an aircraft is.

Update:
I'm sensitive to loud noises too.
Upgraded my ear protection to Pro Ears Ultra 33 Decibles
because other guns firing bother me at the range.

unit1069
11-27-2011, 11:22
My point was that if you are actually shooting under extreme stress, you are unlikely to notice.

I've read this many times before and most of the time the comments indicate this is because the mind under extreme duress focuses exclusively on the immediate threat.

I wonder if the auditory senses shut down under extreme stress the same way blood vessels constrict, heart rate jumps, etc ... And the flip side of this coin is when you hear an unusual sound in the middle of the night; it seems to me the body increases the auditory function to catch other sounds of possible threat.

Berto
11-27-2011, 17:54
Not sure auditory exclusion actually prevents hearing damage or not, but it's proven to be part of a person's fight response.
I was shooting full power .357 mag yesterday from 3" revolvers at an indoor range with partitions, I can't say the boom was much an issue (yes, it draws attention) and I really didn't notice flash at all using Fiocchi 142gr FMJTC magnums.
Of course I have good lighting and hearing protection, but IMO it's NOT exactly a night and day difference from other compact handguns. For example, running 9mm+P in my 3913 gives a sensation of 'hotter' ammo when shooting in the same setting, and while not as intense as the sp101 with magnums, it's not a huge diffrence or dealbreaker either.

dkf
11-27-2011, 20:01
Interesting new video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXFoaszcciM&feature=feedu

You can see the difference between a 9mm+P loading with 4" barrel vs .357mag and .38 spec+P load from a snubby. Altough the .357 load tested isn't that hot.

ithaca_deerslayer
04-09-2014, 11:33
Thought I'd dig this thread up again, since I just bought a .357mag with a 2.5" barrel :)

Can't wait to test it along side my other guns to see how it performs in the backyard range test :tongueout:

fastbolt
04-09-2014, 12:35
Thought I'd dig this thread up again, since I just bought a .357mag with a 2.5" barrel :)

Can't wait to test it along side my other guns to see how it performs in the backyard range test :tongueout:

Might as well resurrect this thread, as the subject itself has been resurrected & revisited with each new generation of handgunner who "discovers" the attributes of the .357 Magnum. ;)

The interesting things we have going on today are the improved hollowpoints ... however ...

I've long thought that one of the advantages offered by earlier cup/core JHPs with exposed nose cavity lead was the ability to shed some fragments flying off at wide angles to the wound tracks. This sort of minor fragmentation has been shown to cut stretched tissue.

It was during a couple of wound ballistics seminars that I saw some morgue x-rays of someone shot in the lower COM with a Rem 125gr SJHP Magnum. In those images the primary bullet core still penetrated deeply, but a number of shed fragments ... presumably from the rolled-over and broken-off leading edges of the lead ahead of the scalloped jacket ... were seen quite a bit off to the sides of the primary wound track. We were told they had cut/severed tissue during some part of the cavitation, increasing the severity of the wounding.

Other JHP's from other bullet makers also had some exposed lead edges, with lead extending above the jacket cup, which were also reported to sometimes fragment to varying degrees. It was always debated whether or not fragmentation was a bad thing or a good thing.

This is one of the less discussed attributes of revolver JHP's in .357 Magnum that doesn't seem to have carried over to the .357SIG, which has to take feeding and deformation resistance of the nose cavity into consideration, since it's being fed & chambered in a pistol. Revolver bullets didn't (don't) have those concerns.

Enjoy the 2.5" .357 Magnum. I only have 1 remaining .357 Magnum with that barrel length, although I have a pair of M&P 340's and my 2.25" SP101 DAO. ;)

The venerable 2"-2.5" .357 Magnum is still a very practical and relatively "powerful" (for a medium-bore handgun) defensive handgun for those folks who can master them.

They can become harder on the wrists (and elbows) as you age, though.

I was an overtly enthusiastic Magnum handgunner & reloader in my younger years. ;)

cowboy1964
04-09-2014, 12:35
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/357mag.html

ithaca_deerslayer
04-09-2014, 12:58
They can become harder on the wrists (and elbows) as you age, though.


I have 2 solutions for making sure shooting my new 2.5" .357 doesn't become a problem:
1. It is an L frame.
2. I refuse to age :)

ithaca_deerslayer
04-09-2014, 12:59
http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/357mag.html

I wonder why their real world tests do not include any 2" to 3" revolvers? There are a lot of them out there.

Bren
04-09-2014, 13:32
Heck, I'm not even a fan of the snubbie .357 because I prefer .38 special for less flash and recoil, but I don't buy the argument that .357 and 9 are the same.

:)

Somebody made the argument "that .357 and 9 are the same"?:rofl:

It's the internet, where non-shooting newbs come to share their expert opinions every single day.

fastbolt
04-09-2014, 15:59
I have 2 solutions for making sure shooting my new 2.5" .357 doesn't become a problem:
1. It is an L frame.
2. I refuse to age :)


When we rebuilt a L-frame for a friend, we had a 2.5" barrel installed. The owner has run several thousand rounds of +P+ and Magnums through that gun.

He eventually melted the red ramp insert (left it submerged in strong solvent overnight :steamed: ), and after I replaced that insert he dropped the gun while climbing a boulder on his property, resulting in a damaged/deformed front ramp (and no way to replace the plastic insert). Fortunately, the top of the post remains at the proper height, so he just uses it to align with the rear blade. Also lucky he didn't damage/tweak the yoke when the gun bounced around the rocks.

That L-frame has been through all kinds of abuse and hard-use (the original 6" barrel was ringed before he learned his lesson of shooting someone's reloads :upeyes: ), and he doesn't see the need to have it re-barreled again.

I expect that if the gun survives his daily usage for a few more years, it'll eventually need to be rebuilt again ... except the former very experienced revolver armorer at my former agency has long since retired, leaving me and another newer armorer to handle revolver chores.

Fortunately, the days of Magnum ammo being issued are long past, and he's mostly down to shooting his remaining stock of .38 Spl +P & +P+ loads. ;)

The whole "refusing to age" thing? Good luck with that goal. :)

I've resisted it for many years, but time seems to have a way of catching up. The after effects of a long list of on & off-duty injuries I've experienced, including some required surgeries, seem to linger longer now that I've reached my 60's. My workouts can still be sufficiently intense, but have to be of shorter duration and more carefully structured to avoid injury to muscles, connective tissue and joints.

Hey, it beats the alternative, though. ;)

SDGlock23
04-10-2014, 08:56
When I had a 3" SP101 .357, I chronographed some loads and it can pump out some pretty good numbers, almost the same as 4" barreled .357's. Even with factory ammo, 125gr Remington JHP I think, it was running around 1,450 fps, which is a good 200-250 fps over a G19/17.

I didn't run a lot of 158gr, but they were all over 1,100 fps, heck Buffalo Bore's 158gr .38 SPecial +P LSWCHP averaged just under 1,100 fps, which I thought was mighty impressive. The little SP101 shot great, and talk about LOUD, yeah it had plenty of that. Oh yeah I did run some 145gr .357 Mag SilverTips and they did around 1,250 fps if memory serves me correct, which is similar weight to the 9mm 147gr, but a good bit speedier.

Inebriated
04-10-2014, 16:56
If you want a snubbie that actually spits a bullet out at any meaningful velocity, get a G33... Will put up higher velocities than any 357 mag snubbie could even dream of (with comparable bullet weights). Underwood's 357 SIG 124gr is about 1480fps out of the 33. I've yet to see a snubbie touch that.

That said, 9mm has worked for decades now. Less recoil, higher capacity, easier reloads, low noise, cheaper, and there's no reason not to use it other than the need to talk about velocities.

Berto
04-10-2014, 20:00
If 3" counts for 'snubby', then hot 125gr will match hot .357sig no problem, and keep doing it past the sig's heaviest bullets since you can go up to 200gr weights in the revolver.

Inebriated
04-10-2014, 20:37
If 3" counts for 'snubby', then hot 125gr will match hot .357sig no problem, and keep doing it past the sig's heaviest bullets since you can go up to 200gr weights in the revolver.
I take snubby to mean 2"-ish max. The magnum really does well out of 3"+ barrels, but in something like a 640, it just suffers more than the Sig. To me, the biggest point of comparison between the magnum and Sig is the velocity:size ratio. A G33 and a 640 are, for all intents and purposes, the exact same size and carry the same. Between the two, the G33 just can push a comparable bullet faster. Now when barrel length increases, the magnum really makes a gap between them, but to me, with the smaller guns, 357 Sig just makes sense. Which is why I brought it up, if OP is looking at a snub 357 magnum, why not look at a 357 Sig in comparison, instead of 9mm?

Berto
04-10-2014, 20:53
Fair enough, I tend to agree snubby means two-something inch or shorter.

fastbolt
04-11-2014, 01:48
The older snub barrel lengths were often considered to mean either 2" (ish) or 2 1/2" models. M10's could be ordered with 2" barrels, but the M19/66's were 2 1/2" guns, as were the Python snubs.

The introduction of the 3" guns, meaning the M36's and the M13/65's, sort of fell into a grey area, but were still generally considered by most users/owners to be snub revolvers.

Ruger considered their Speed-Sixes to be snubs, with their 2 3/4" barrels. The later SP101's with their 2 1/4" & 3" barrels were also considered snubs, as well.

Just depends where someone feels they want to draw the line for it being a "snub", I suppose.

Of course, bear in mind that once upon a time a full-size "service revolver" pretty much meant a gun had a 5" or 6" barrel ... and I remember how some folks looked askance at 4" guns becoming considered "service revolvers". ;)

Also, the hotter/faster .357SIG loads produced by some of the smaller/custom ammo companies doesn't change the fact that the duty loads produced by the major ammo companies are still rated at 1350fps.

When you consider that the older tests of the major company 125gr .357 Mag loads could still run 1250-1300+fps when tested in the common 2 1/2" K-frame/Python, depending on the individual guns tested (tighter/wider BC gaps), it sort of lessens the potential difference between those calibers. ;)

Pick what you like, and don't worry about MV envy.

Even if they were identical, though, the controllability and capacity differences experienced by many users often makes the pistols easier to shoot and desirable by many shooters.

Tiro Fijo
04-11-2014, 03:18
Having carried a S&W 3" they are NOT a snubby IMO. Personally, I consider anything 2.5" & under a snubby. A "textbook" snubby can be carried in a pocket and that is not feasible in most pants with a 3" DA revolver. All jokes aside, that extra half inch does make a difference. :whistling:

jvbronco
04-11-2014, 05:41
Not sure auditory exclusion actually prevents hearing damage or not, but it's proven to be part of a person's fight response.

It does not. Hearing damage is a physical occurrence due to unusually strong reverberation in the sensory "parts" that transform sound waves to signals in the brain. Loud noises literally vibrate **** loose and cause damage. Adrenalin doesn't prevent this damage, it only prevents you from noticing it so that you can focus on saving your bacon (flight response).




Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

ithaca_deerslayer
04-11-2014, 08:38
A G33 and a 640 are, for all intents and purposes, the exact same size and carry the same.

No way.

This is where so many people are wrong, in my humble opinion :)

I've got a 642, and I know I can get a .357 version just as light (not the 640 which is steel, but one of the high tech models). Even so, the 640 is virutally the same size as the 642. I also have a Glock 26.

The carry difference between the 642 and G26 is HUGE!!!!!

The 642 carries so much easier, is lighter, conceals better, is smaller, is thinner (all but the cylinder). And perhaps most importantly, at least on me, the revolver shape is infintitely less likely to print than the semi-auto shape, because the revolver does not have a square pointy blocky slide by the rear sight area.

I will, however, state that I believe the G26 is a better defensive gun than the 642. My G26 is reliable (but not all semi-autos are), and holds 11 with a fast reload of 10. It is easier to shoot, easier to shoot more accurately, and easier to shoot more quickly. A Glock 26 has a lot going for it (and so do the other calibers in similar sized Glocks).

Having said that, there are many days when the 642 is my carry choice because of concealment issues. There are also many days that I do carry the Glock 26, but the snubby revolver definitely has its place :tongueout:

Inebriated
04-11-2014, 10:37
No way.

This is where so many people are wrong, in my humble opinion :)

I've got a 642, and I know I can get a .357 version just as light (not the 640 which is steel, but one of the high tech models). Even so, the 640 is virutally the same size as the 642. I also have a Glock 26.

The carry difference between the 642 and G26 is HUGE!!!!!

The 642 carries so much easier, is lighter, conceals better, is smaller, is thinner (all but the cylinder). And perhaps most importantly, at least on me, the revolver shape is infintitely less likely to print than the semi-auto shape, because the revolver does not have a square pointy blocky slide by the rear sight area.

I will, however, state that I believe the G26 is a better defensive gun than the 642. My G26 is reliable (but not all semi-autos are), and holds 11 with a fast reload of 10. It is easier to shoot, easier to shoot more accurately, and easier to shoot more quickly. A Glock 26 has a lot going for it (and so do the other calibers in similar sized Glocks).

Having said that, there are many days when the 642 is my carry choice because of concealment issues. There are also many days that I do carry the Glock 26, but the snubby revolver definitely has its place :tongueout:
Let me rephrase my statement, then... The two guns chambered in 357 Magnum or 357 SIG that are the closest in size and ease of carry are the J-frames and the baby Glocks. They're just the most comparable for the sake of 357 SIG vs. Magnum discussions. My main point was that small 357 magnums don't perform as well as small 357 SIGs, when talking about the same bullet weights (125gr or 147/158gr). That doesn't mean that 357 magnum hasn't had an amazing track record, but you were comparing a snubby 357 mag to a compact 9mm, so just I think it's worth bringing up the fact that a "snubby" 357 SIG can do the same or slightly better (velocity-wise) than either. Just a point of comparison is all.

fastbolt
04-11-2014, 12:11
Having carried a S&W 3" they are NOT a snubby IMO. ... All jokes aside, that extra half inch does make a difference. :whistling:

Yeah, back when I used to pocket-carry my 3" Bulldogs and my 3" nickeled 36, I could really only do so when wearing one of my jackets or vests with large outside pockets. No way I could fit my 3" 36 in most of my jeans pockets (although my cargo shorts have deep pockets).

I guess we could use pocket carry as the dividing line.

Belt carry snub? Out to 3".

Pocket carry snub? 2" & under.

One of the other defining features of the typical snubs were the size & shape of the grip frame & grip stocks, compared to the standard model revolver. This is where the grip frames of the K-frame & Python still made for chunky "snubs" better carried in a belt scabbard.

I sometimes chuckle when watching some old late 50's black & white sci-fi shows, and see someone drop a full-size .38 service revolver into either a front slacks/uniform pocket, or a lightweight jacket pocket. Guess they didn't worry about quite so much. :rofl:

fastbolt
04-11-2014, 12:14
It does not. Hearing damage is a physical occurrence due to unusually strong reverberation in the sensory "parts" that transform sound waves to signals in the brain. Loud noises literally vibrate **** loose and cause damage. Adrenalin doesn't prevent this damage, it only prevents you from noticing it so that you can focus on saving your bacon (flight response).




Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

Yep. Auditory exclusion (sensory deficit) occurring due to fight/freeze/fear response doesn't mitigate the potential for actual damage at the physical level.

ithaca_deerslayer
04-11-2014, 13:28
That doesn't mean that 357 magnum hasn't had an amazing track record, but you were comparing a snubby 357 mag to a compact 9mm, so just I think it's worth bringing up the fact that a "snubby" 357 SIG can do the same or slightly better (velocity-wise) than either. Just a point of comparison is all.

I agree with you.

Those baby Glocks are awesome! Just not quite as small as a snubby revolver.

Inebriated
04-11-2014, 14:28
I agree with you.

Those baby Glocks are awesome! Just not quite as small as a snubby revolver.
Yeah, I may be really up the G33's ass, just because I've been looking hard at one, and looking at the practicality of it vs. a 640. As you may have noticed, I have come to the conclusion that the G33 brings more to the table for me. :supergrin:

I do like snubbies, I've carried a couple for a short time (borrowed guns), and they're just such great little guns. But, I get kind of nerdy when I see a G33 putting up 1480fps with a 125gr bullet lol.

Tiro Fijo
04-11-2014, 20:19
...But, I get kind of nerdy when I see a G33 putting up 1480fps with a 125gr bullet lol.





Shooting one w/o ear protection will cure your "itch" ASAP.

Inebriated
04-11-2014, 21:45
Shooting one w/o ear protection will cure your "itch" ASAP.
I'm sure. One thing I like about the 19 is that it's not abrasive to shoot without ear protection. I don't do it, but I have taken a few shots without ears on, and it's not bad.

Berto
04-17-2014, 20:38
The mini Glocks are as good as it gets for a small pistol...But they don't carry like a snubbie. No debating they are a more effective weapon though.