357 mag vs 10mm [Archive]

10mm4ever

01-03-2007, 05:54

Originally posted by ColoradoGlocker
Nope, that claim isn't supported by the data: Check out the Double Tap and Buffalo Bore Ammunition sites for both 10mm and 357Mag. Both are within SAAMI specs and they equal or beat the 357Mag in performance from like barrel lengths. For a broader evaluation, check out the 10mm Reloading Forum here on GT. There are the test results of many more 10mm loads listed there, many with 6" barrels. However, even just from Double Tap or Buffalo Bore's site, the 10mm compares to the 357Mag as follows:

10mm:.....................................357Mag........................

135grn - 1,600fps - 767ft/lbs...DT - 125grn - 1,600fps - 710ft/lbs
155grn - 1,475fps - 750ft/lbs...BB - 158grn - 1,485fps - 763ft/lbs
165grn - 1,425fps - 744ft/lbs...BB - 170grn - 1,411fps - 751ft/lbs
180grn - 1,350fps - 728ft/lbs...DT - 180grn - 1,300fps - 676ft/lbs
200grn - 1,275fps - 722ft/lbs...DT - 200grn - 1,200fps - 640ft/lbs
215grn - 1,225fps - 717ft/lbs...n/a
230grn - 1,120fps - 641ft/lbs...n/a

As I said above, both the calibers benefit from 6" barrels but you are comparing the std barreled versions of both so you have to compare apples to apples.

Empirical data or just your opinion? Lets deal in data.

Yes

Irrelevant comment in that you are quoting historical information about only one caliber and not a comparison between the two.

Yep, 357Mag looses.

How is trajectory that important in a self defense pistol? Sure, I like to shoot long distance for fun, but neither pistol is practical at 100yds.

Read your own statement above again! You say "advantage 357 Mag." but then concede that the G29 is as small and light and, "probably more easier to control than a scandium revolver."

If you are going with a 2" barreled 357Mag, the ballistic performance edge you wrongly claim for the 357Mag goes to hell and is no longer even close to the 10mm. You've got to pick one. Either pick a platform with the performance you want to compare to the 10mm (you loose the argument on size and weight) or pick a platform that is the same size and weight of a Glock (you loose the argument on performance). There isn't one that works for both.

You can't have it both ways. Like barreled 10mm and 357Mags give like performance ratings, however there is no way for you to talk your way out of:

* The 357Mag revolver is larger and weighs more empty than the Glock 10mm weighs fully loaded
* The G20 can easily hold 3 times the round count of the revolver. 3 Times the round count! +100:thumbsup:

MakeMineA10mm

01-03-2007, 10:24

Noway, are you just being a contrarian?!? :wavey:

Quotes below are all originally posted by noway
Bullet weight - equal both 10mm and 357 can shoot up to 220grains

Actually, there are 230gr bullets for the 357 Mag, but I think the advantage is still to the 10mm, because all the modern 357 bullets bigger than 180grs I've seen are a modified wadcutter format, designed for pin-shooting. Not very flexible bullet designs... Whereas, the 10mm has FMJ, JHP, and cast lead (with different nose forms). In addition, the load data I've got (and used) for 357 w/ super-heavy bullets starts showing a sharp falling off of maximum velocities with these super-heavy bullets. For example, with the 230gr Extended Wad-Cutters I used to load for pin shooting, the 357 maxed out at about 825fps.

Sectional Density - 357mag , skinny long bullets have greater SD, in like weight bullets the 357 trumps 10mm in SD and also in BC as far as that goes. Compare a 180grain ( 357mag vrs 10mm ) and you get a .201 vrs a .159 for SD
Well, this ties into my point above. I list this as a tie, because the heaviest standard bullets for each caliber (180gr for 357 & 200gr for 10mm) have equal SDs. And, for that matter the lightest standard bullets in each caliber (125gr for 357 and 135gr for 10mm) are pretty close in SD too. There's no real difference between these calibers, unless you want to start calling the 357's advantage based on some modified-form lead WCs that are available from a VERY few commercial bullet casters...

Energy - 357mag if you use the orginal specs and from a 6" bbl will trump 10mm and STAY within SAAMI pressure limits
OK, now you're just comparing apples to oranges. Again, let's take standard barrel lengths of the two calibers (4" for 357 Mag & 4.6" for 10mm), and I'm sorry that the 357 is a revolver caliber, but those are the breaks. Yes, the 357 does perform a lot better from a solid breach gun, but it's a revolver round, so you have to pay the price of the barrel-cylinder gap. In addition, I don't buy the argument that a 4" barrel on a revolver is shorter than a 4.6" barrel on an automatic, because the auto's barrel is measured including the chamber, whereas the revolver's barrel does not include the chamber(s)-cylinders aren't measured on revolver barrel lengths. So, a person taking the 10mm side in this could take the position that the 357 should LOSE some FPS. Personally, I think as a practical matter, we need to just accept the differences in construction of the weapons and the methods of measurement and make our conclusions based on the standard practices, as that's what most everyone uses. That means, this is a tie, as I stated above...

Penetration - see above on SD, I would bet a 180 bullet from a 357mag going the same speed of a 180grain 10mm and in the same profile jacket hp or solid , the 357mag would penetrate the same
Again, you're conclusion is correct; however you're using the heaviest standard bullet in a 357 compared to a middle-ground bullet in a 10mm. If you're using the heaviest thing available, and handicapping the 10mm with a moderate load, sure you're right. I like comparing apples to apples, and would say that with similar SD bullets penetration would be the same. Now, if you want to look at what most people carry for self-defense, you'd have to compare the 125gr 357 load and the 165gr or 180gr 10mm load, and then we could argue that the 10mm has a clear advantage, because in the most commonly accepted/used loads in each caliber, the 10mm far out-penetrates the 357, but I won't say that.

Bullet diameter - yes less than .050 of a difference
Well, the trouble with this statement is that you're comparing DIAMETER. The way blood works when bleeding, you need to compare the differences between the areas of the circles cut by each cartridge. Using Pi*r2, we find the area of the diameter of each of the bullets is:
10mm - .126228785
357M - .10060874
Dividing out the difference, we see the 10mm makes a 20% bigger hole in the target. Methinks a 20% bigger hole is going to bleed a lot better than the .050" figure implies...

Fackler/FBI tests - 357 is one of the best stopper and more street shooting than a 10mm
OK, you're mixing things up here. You're comparing Marshal/Sanow (who have NO scientific credibility whatsoever) with Fackler and FBI tests, which are done with strong scientific controls and calibration. I'm not saying either one of them is right or wrong, but I'd place my money on the FBI/Fackler tests, purely from a standpoint of science. Sure the 357 has LOTS of data, probably because everybody used it for a solid 30 years (1950s through 1970s), and practically no one in Law Enforcement uses the 10mm any more. That doesn't matter to me, because it's not comparing apples to apples, so if we're trying to have a valid discourse about the attributes/deficiencies of these calibers compared, this argument has no place here. Only ones that are scientifically reliable and comparable.

Power Factor - see the energy thing above
I did. You're wrong. Power factor, as established by IPSC has long been known to benefit calibers/cartridges w/ greater bullet weight over those with higher velocity. The 10mm beats the 357 down the line, by a wide margin on power factor every time:

10mm 135gr @ 1600fps = 216.000 PF
357 125gr @ 1600fps = 200.000 PF

10mm 165gr @ 1425fps = 235.125 PF *
357 158gr @ 1485fps = 234.630 PF *

10mm 200gr @ 1275fps = 255.000 PF
357 180gr @ 1300fps = 234.000 PF

* These are the closest loads I could find, and the bullets are not exactly comparable, as the 158gr 357 bullet has a higher SD than the 165gr 10mm. Probably a 170gr or 175gr 10mm is closer to compare to this 357 bullet.

Trajectory - advantage 357 Mag definetly, highly BC in like weight projectile and less drop over the long run
Again, you're comparing bullet weight, when you should be comparing loads w/ similar BC/SD. See my comments above about penetration. If using comparable bullets (like the 180gr 357 and 200gr 10mm), there is virtually no difference between these two calibers. The reason I gave an edge to the 357 is because the 180gr at max velocity do have a flatter trajectory than, say, the 190gr FPJ out of the 10mm, and those are comparable loads and bullets, even used for similar purposes - long range silhouette. The difference is still small, and there's virtually no difference for me when I'm sighting for shooting my pistols at long range on the club's rifle range.

Compactness of firearms - advantage 357 Mag (Ruger SP101/S&W 2" scandium are awefully small and light), a G29 is also very compact and probably more easier to control than a scandium revolver.
See? Now I know you're just yanking my chain! :supergrin: You've put together all these arguments above against the 10mm, and then you turn around and say the G29 is just as compact and imply it's probably more contollable than a small 357! OK, I'll agree! :animlol:

Great point above that I forgot about firepower - capacity of the guns. Comparing full-size guns, the 10mm Glock has a 200% advantage (carries 3 times as many rounds) and comparing compacts, the 10mm Glock has a 100% advantage (carries twice the number of rounds).

I really like the 357 Mag, but as a practical matter, the 10mm is head-and shoulders above the 357. Close, but clearly the 10 is better.

noway

01-03-2007, 19:57

{Well, this ties into my point above. I list this as a tie, because the heaviest standard bullets for each caliber (180gr for 357 & 200gr for 10mm) have equal SDs}

Will not true my SD calculator shows the 357 180grain has a higher SD than a 200grain .401 caliber. Not sure at where your pulling this same up.

1st like point out earlier, bullets in 220 range and heavier are commonly found by loaded for the 357mag. If you take the heaviest bullet in each caliber the 357mag will have a better SD

Second SD leads to greater penetration. So back to penetration issues, all being the same a higher in SD = more penetration

{OK, now you're just comparing apples to oranges. Again, let's take standard barrel lengths of the two calibers (4" for 357 Mag & 4.6" for 10mm), and I'm sorry that the 357 is a revolver caliber, but those are the breaks. Yes, the 357 does perform a lot better from a solid breach gun, but it's a revolver round, so you have to pay the price of the barrel-cylinder gap. In addition, I don't buy the argument that a 4" barrel on a revolver is shorter than a 4.6" barrel on an automatic, because the auto's barrel is measured including the chamber, whereas the revolver's barrel does not include the chamber(s)-cylinders aren't measured on revolver barrel lengths. So, a person taking the 10mm side in this could take the position that the 357 should LOSE some FPS. Personally, I think as a practical matter, we need to just accept the differences in construction of the weapons and the methods of measurement and make our conclusions based on the standard practices, as that's what most everyone uses. That means, this is a tie, as I stated above...}

No this is apple to apples, take a 357mag with the orginal specs and bbl and it will out do a 10mm with orginal specs and bbl. Not making this up. Just look at it or take a look at the BB 125grain 357mag it and even in it 6" bbl ( on the website ) produce more energy than the 10mm load on their website. I have NOT seen one commercial 10mm load with 800fpe of energy with in std the bbl specs of 5". We all can keep adding bbls lengths to the guns and get even higher and higher performance. I bet if I pull up a 8" bbl for the 357mag and load that BB 125grain load in it I wouldn't besurprise if it was over 900 and closer to 1000fpe of energy

{Now, if you want to look at what most people carry for self-defense, you'd have to compare the 125gr 357 load and the 165gr or 180gr 10mm load, and then we could argue that the 10mm has a clear advantage, because in the most commonly accepted/used loads in each caliber, the 10mm far out-penetrates the 357, but I won't say that.}

Once again pull up a SD calculator

a 357magnum 125grain load has a SD of .141 a 10mm 165mm load has a .147 , BUT I 've used one oft he litetest 357mag bullet vrs a 10mm middle if you did an apple to apple comparison

i.e 125grain vsr 135gr 10mm the 357mag would when out or if you did a 180grain 357mag to 10mm 180grain guess what 3 5 7 magnum wins again. If you going to state "apple to apples" then it should apply across the board. Right ? ;)

{Dividing out the difference, we see the 10mm makes a 20% bigger hole in the target. Methinks a 20% bigger hole is going to bleed a lot better than the .050" figure implies...}

I hope you don't believe that just becase a bullet is .401 vrs .357 it will bleed out more? Have you seen how much blood drips out of a hog, deer or human that's been shot ? In all fairness unless you believe CSI the exit wounds are probably non-distinguishable in most handgun shootings.

{How is trajectory that important in a self defense pistol? Sure, I like to shoot long distance for fun, but neither pistol is practical at 100yds.
}

Hey don;t question me MM10 started this format I was just plugging in the 357mag stuff ;)

{Nope, that claim isn't supported by the data: Check out the Double Tap and Buffalo Bore Ammunition sites for both 10mm and 357Mag. Both are within SAAMI specs and they equal or beat the 357Mag in performance from like barrel lengths. For a broader evaluation, check out the 10mm Reloading Forum here on GT. There are the test results of many more 10mm loads listed there, many with 6" barrels. However, even just from Double Tap or Buffalo Bore's site, the 10mm compares to the 357Mag as follows:

10mm:.....................................357Mag........................

135grn - 1,600fps - 767ft/lbs...DT - 125grn - 1,600fps - 710ft/lbs
155grn - 1,475fps - 750ft/lbs...BB - 158grn - 1,485fps - 763ft/lbs
165grn - 1,425fps - 744ft/lbs...BB - 170grn - 1,411fps - 751ft/lbs
180grn - 1,350fps - 728ft/lbs...DT - 180grn - 1,300fps - 676ft/lbs
200grn - 1,275fps - 722ft/lbs...DT - 200grn - 1,200fps - 640ft/lbs
215grn - 1,225fps - 717ft/lbs...n/a
230grn - 1,120fps - 641ft/lbs...n/a}

I see you conviently left off the 357mag 125gr @1700fps for 802 fpe of energy ;)

noway

01-03-2007, 20:21

also since we all seems to be in diasgreement I would like to throw this log on the fire. If anybody have a chrono ( like myself ) and have a 610 ( 10mm ) and 686 ( 357mag ) and in the same bbl length let's say 4" or 6" and since both are revolvers and both are N frames and both in the same bbl length and now we have a true "apple 2 apples" and nobody can't claim ..."Oh it's a revolver and yada yada yadad and it's unfair bbl length", or polygonal rifling vrs std or any other the other nonsense that comes.

keep in mind the today's 357magnum are waterdown vrs the 10mm loads are waterback up or back iaw with the norma specs.

Who here would care to wager that the 357mag/10mm in that above scenario using "hottest factory" ammo from your choice and the BB 125grain load. Who would care to wager that the 357magnum would be or not be hotter than "insert your favorite doubletap load or other"?

> only thing allowed are loaded rounds iaw SAAMI
> B/C gap must be iaw with mfg limits
> no ported weapons
> weapons are cleaned prior to da shooting test

Anybody up to the 357mag vrs 10mm pepsi challenge? we could do this and post the results as sticky in the 10mm and caliber forum and it would be the post the put to bed the "debate on 10 vsr 357 " and who is the most powerfull between the two ;)

if anybody has both revolvers and a chrono I wouldn't mind chipping in for a box for BB 357mag and somebody else do the 10mm, just give me back what ever you don't shoot in the 357mag, I figure 5-6 rounds would be more than enough. if anybody locally in SE/florida and want to go to range with me and my chrono and have the same 2 guns, I will provide the Pact Chrono and pay the range fee and ammo cost.

btw: my schedule will be all open any weekend in mid-Feb or March just give me a weeks notice. Just brings the guns and I'll bring the bore brush and feeler gauge and ammo
;)

MakeMineA10mm

01-03-2007, 23:47

Well, you're definitely more right than me about the SD thing. The 10mm does require more than 20-25grs more bullet to get the same SD. That kind-of suprised me. I was using my Mk.1 eyeball to compare length/diameter of one bullet to another, but when I got onto Sierra's website and looked up the bullets, your figures are right. Another scientific fact is that with same SD bullets at the same velocity, the smaller-diameter one will penetrate farther. Why? Because there is less area to be resisted by the target medium, hence the smaller diameter bullet is retarded more slowly than the larger diameter bullet resulting in more residual energy and deeper penetration.

However, there are several places where we still disagree.

For one, I disagree w/ comparing bullets of like weight. When comparing bullets of two different diameters, one must use SD to comparing bullets' penetration fairly. Otherwise, one is always going to give the penetration advantage to a potentially less powerful round (the smaller diameter one). For example, let's say the 220gr 357 bullet is loaded in a 38Spl at 750fps. It could still penetrate farther than say a 45ACP 225gr bullet at 800fps, because it has better SD and less frontal area to act as a brake. Obviously, a wrong conclusion would be drawn that the 38 load is more powerful than the 45 load. So, comparing same weights straight up isn't an apples-to-apples comparison, even though it sounds logical.

Second, yes, I do believe a 20% bigger hole is going to bleed faster, and I've been a Deputy Coroner for 8 years and done my fair share of game shooting. Seen plenty of animals and people shot to death, and I guarantee that a 20% bigger hole CAN be a decisive factor (barring other decisive factors taking a bigger role, such as CNS hit). I've seen plenty of bullet holes in flesh and can guarantee you I can differentiate between a 9mm and a 45. 40 and 9mm, not by the naked eye, but I can with a ruler. Perhaps you've drawn the wrong conclusion because you've only looked at wounds from high-powered rifles? Those are mighty hard to differentiate between calibers... AND, we're not talking about whether one hole looks bigger than another. We're talking about whether a bigger hole bleeds faster than another. In real life in a life-and-death situation with an adrenalin dump and the heart still beating, there is a hydraulic force at work that changes things. This 20% difference isn't a big deal if we're watching paint slowly run through and drip out of straws that are 20% different in internal diameter. BUT, you put a pump on the straws and see if a 20% bigger diameter makes a difference. You've looked at holes in dead, partially bled-out animals from rifle wounds - not even close to the same situation. And, we haven't even opened up the expanding-bullet can-o-worms. (A larger-diameter expanding bullet can expand farther than a smaller-diameter expanding bullet, therefore multiplying this effect, so a .401" expanded may be 25%, 30%, or even more larger than a .357" expanded...)

Third, in your posts you keep saying that we need to compare SAAMI approved level loads, and then you quote "BB" (Buffalo Bore?) loads that are obviously not within SAAMI specs, or their advertising is a little exagerative. (Is that a real word?) A 125gr @ 1700fps is within SAAMI specs? (Doubt it, or the real velocity is closer to 1600fps...) In some of these same paragraphs you mention getting the 357 back up to where it started (back in the 1930s I presume?). I'm sure you believe that the 357 has been downloaded incrementally over the years, due to lawyers/liability concerns. I won't disagree with that 100%, but I'd also refer you to several commentators in the gun press (Handloader magazine, for one), where they have compared the changes in construction of S&W revolvers over the years, with warranty work required and load levels approved by SAAMI. Their bottom line conclusion? SAAMI lowered levels at the behest of manufacturers (that's who they are after all) because the "original" loads beat the he!l out of the pistols... A combination of lower-pressure loads and beefier construction of the pistols has greatly reduced this. I'd estimate that if current loads are 15% lighter than "original" loads, about 2% of that is for the lawyers, and 13% of it is to keep the guns from getting shot to pieces by too hot ammunition. The 10mm shouldn't suffer from this, because it has always been a 37,500psi cartridge and all guns for it are supposed to be built to a level to handle that pressure. (Note I said "should" & "supposed to". I recognize that some manufacturers may not build them robust enough to handle 25,000 full-power loads...)

Fourth, near the beginning of your post, you write: "1st like point out earlier, bullets in 220 range and heavier are commonly found by loaded for the 357mag. " OK, I don't know where you shop or what your definition of "commonly" is, but I've never seen factory loads in any gunshop for 357 Mag. w/ 220gr bullets. (And, I've been in dozens of gunshops in about 10 states over the years, and regularly hit the half-dozen in my local area.) Cast lead bullets heavier than 158gr are very uncommon, and I only saw the 230gr bullets in gunshops when I sold them to them from my commercial casting business in the early 90s... The heaviest STANDARD bullet and loading you'll find for the 357 Mag is 180gr. (There once was a factory load w/ a 200gr bullet, loaded by Winchester, I think, but that is long gone, like a few decades ago...)

Look, this started out as a caliber debate, and we're still talking about the two calibers asked by the O.P., but what we're really dancing around here, is a stopping power theory. We've been arguing about penetration, bullet diameter, energy (in many widely divergent ways to calculate it), etc. We're not going to solve the debate of "what is 'the real' stopping power law?" on this thread (to say the least). But, as far as the original question goes, I think we can sum up this debate as:

I have never been against the 357 and you've never been against the 10mm. You won me over on a couple points, but clearly lost some others. The bottom line as far as the original question goes is that the 10mm is more powerful than the 357, but not so much as to say it leaves the 357 in the dust. The 357 is right on the 10mm heels, but it is definitely behind the 10mm in "power" (whatever that is...).

ColoradoGlocker

01-03-2007, 23:58

Skeezer

01-04-2007, 01:47

I have a Ruger Gp100 6inch barrel stainless, and a g-20 .I love both these calibers. On thing many in this thread have not discussed is the ability to shoot smoking hot loads in the wheel gun(Reloads.) You would have to change spring settings in the G20 to get the kind of snort i can load up in a .357 round.

HK45Mark23

01-04-2007, 02:40

Originally posted by noway
also since we all seems to be in diasgreement I would like to throw this log on the fire. If anybody have a chrono ( like myself ) and have a 610 ( 10mm ) and 686 ( 357mag ) and in the same bbl length let's say 4" or 6" and since both are revolvers and both are N frames and both in the same bbl length and now we have a true "apple 2 apples" and nobody can't claim ..."Oh it's a revolver and yada yada yadad and it's unfair bbl length", or polygonal rifling vrs std or any other the other nonsense that comes.

keep in mind the today's 357magnum are waterdown vrs the 10mm loads are waterback up or back iaw with the norma specs.

Who here would care to wager that the 357mag/10mm in that above scenario using "hottest factory" ammo from your choice and the BB 125grain load. Who would care to wager that the 357magnum would be or not be hotter than "insert your favorite doubletap load or other"?

> only thing allowed are loaded rounds iaw SAAMI
> B/C gap must be iaw with mfg limits
> no ported weapons
> weapons are cleaned prior to da shooting test

Anybody up to the 357mag vrs 10mm pepsi challenge? we could do this and post the results as sticky in the 10mm and caliber forum and it would be the post the put to bed the "debate on 10 vsr 357 " and who is the most powerfull between the two ;)

if anybody has both revolvers and a chrono I wouldn't mind chipping in for a box for BB 357mag and somebody else do the 10mm, just give me back what ever you don't shoot in the 357mag, I figure 5-6 rounds would be more than enough. if anybody locally in SE/florida and want to go to range with me and my chrono and have the same 2 guns, I will provide the Pact Chrono and pay the range fee and ammo cost.

btw: my schedule will be all open any weekend in mid-Feb or March just give me a weeks notice. Just brings the guns and I'll bring the bore brush and feeler gauge and ammo
;)

The real question is does any one have a chronograph, a 6” Desert Eagle chambered in .357 Magnum and a 6” Glock-20.

In that case you would have a non vented barrel semiautomatic platform in both 357 and 10mm (this concept makes up for the gap between the chamber and barrel in a revolver).

I know the Desert Eagle is gas operated, but I still think this is a good platform for comparing the two calibers and that the gas operated DE will not cause enough energy loss to affect the results. The DE gas operation will not affect the results as much as the loss of pressure from the gap in a revolver.

So who is going to take him up on his offer to test these two rounds side by side, in Revolvers vs. Simi-Autos and Revolvers vs. Revolvers and Simi-Autos vs. Simi-Autos.

I have even seen rifles of 18” in 10mm lets get the 18” rifles out and chronograph them.

Skeezer

01-04-2007, 04:05

I can do revolver vs G20 ammo of your choice, but help me find a crono.

noway

01-04-2007, 06:31

I'm trying to bypass the "complaints" of it's not a apple to apple comparison.

We can also do a fix-bbl gun like a contender. I have a frame and would be more than happy to try out a bbl (357mag vrs 10mm) of the same equal lengths. No B/C gap,no action to worry about, no other nonsense. Just load a gun and fire and record and change the bbl to the other cartride load the gun and fire. Perform 5-6 times and do an avg.

{The real question is does any one have a chronograph, a 6” Desert Eagle chambered in .357 Magnum and a 6” Glock-20.
}

Trying to rule out anything that can be construed as unfair, I know somebody here would complain "Oh it's a DE and gas-operated w/ adifferent locking mechanism" or something like that :upeyes:

I want to also provide a link to a gunblast story that got me back on the 357 renaissance that I'm on. I also doing my personal 357max renaissance also which outdoes a 357mag by a big margin and eclipse the 41/44magnum spectrum with ease and safely.

http://www.gunblast.com/MilesFortis-AKChurch_BuffaloBore.htm

This is a std 357mag BB factory ammo in a non-modified 6" tube revolver make cleanly over 840fpe of energy with a off the shelf load.

Not a ColoradoGlock handload ;) or my handload or yours of unkown load pressures, but a round that anybody can buy that supposely iaw with SAAMi max pressure and all of that.

Anybody up to the `pepsi` challenge? here's your chance to prove your case or shutup, if this test took place under the condiitons of all things being the same, I already know the outcome ;)

MakeMineA10mm

01-04-2007, 17:20

I really don't think you'll develop a test that everyone agrees is valid. There are good arguments either way, on many of these issues.

For example, is an apples-to-apples comparison using two exact same styles of guns, just in the two different chamberings? (That would be the scientific approach, since there is only one variable.) OR is the comparison only valid if we're talking about "carrying" guns (like 2" 5-shot 357s and the G-29)? OR is the comparison only valid if we compare typical belt guns (duty guns) in the two calibers, like a GP-100 w/ 4" bbl and G-20 w/ 4.6" bbl?

I guess we can do whatever we like that satisfies us, but has anyone else noticed the absence of the original poster? Anyone remember who he is, without scrolling to the top of the page and looking??? :shocked: (I didn't.)

Since he started it, I think we should try to determine what HE is really trying to compare and thinks is a valid test?

Oh, yeah, and one other thing. I haven't gone to your link and read it yet, noway, but I plan to tonight sometime. My question is, though, how do we make the ammunition part of the test valid? The original pressure standard for the 357 was in CUP and was pretty high. So high, that they cut it down both before and after WWII. (Even back then with a devil-may-care attitude, they recognized that the pressures were too high in 357...) So, do we take SAAMI pressures as established today? In 1935? In 1990? When? And, how do we know what loads are within what pressures? I know Mike at DoubleTap has the Oehler Model 43 PBL. He could compare pressures, but I don't know if that is valid due to the differences in construction of the two guns (if we use a revolver vs. Glock).

I know the idea of a test is great if for no other reason getting in some range time, but there are some major issues to settle to convince everyone that the test is valid...

Bullman

01-04-2007, 17:31

I would bet that no matter which cartridge would come out on top in the apples to apples similar launching platform test, the difference would be marginial enough as to not really matter much. Would you gain enough by switching to either which one to gain a significant advantage? I doubt it.

noway

01-04-2007, 18:44

{I really don't think you'll develop a test that everyone agrees is valid. There are good arguments either way, on many of these issues.}

That's the best you can do and not have any lopsided issues or people complaining. Either 2 contenders or 2 revolvers of the same size/bbl length etc and each loaded with factory ammo. Don't know how to make it any more equal and I betting nobody will take the challenge either ;) ( sounds or crickets in the background ;) )

{o high, that they cut it down both before and after WWII. (Even back then with a devil-may-care attitude, they recognized that the pressures were too high in 357...) So, do we take SAAMI pressures as established today? In 1935? In 1990? When? And, how do we know what loads are within what pressures? I know Mike at DoubleTap has the Oehler Model 43 PBL. He could compare pressures, but I don't know if that is valid due to the differences in construction of the two guns (if we use a revolver vs. Glock).}

good valid points and that was why I label it as " the now water down 357magnum loads" if anybody would care to step up to the pepsi challenge. if we load the 357mag back to what it was in the past this would a no challenge.

Tho one correction on the pressure being reduce, it wasn't because it was too "high" it was because the mfgs start making reduced sized revolvers. The orginal spec 357mag 158gr at 1500fps and a honest 800 plus fpe was done out of a N frame revolver not a K or J frame revolver nor a scandium or aluminum or some other alloy. CUP, PSI, CIP or whatever method of pressure used is ilrevalant. We aren't trying to compare pressues we are trying to compare energy and performance levels. Who care if one is done in CUPs and the other in PSI if both are loading within the boundary of the set peak pressures limits as establish by authoritive authorities like SAAMI or CIP. Then also factor in the bullets of today and in the past where the same.

I've personally have 2 loads of 180gr and heavy 357magnum hardcast w/gc that makes 830fpe and loaded with std proven loaddata that's with in specs.

I can't say the same for the 10mm. It's also silly to compare the two cartridge. The 10mm came around as a LEO duty round where the 357magnum has always been introduce as lite magnum hunting load. ( remember S & W big hunting campaign to introduce a new gun and round ) SW prove this gun/round out in the mid 30s by showing the world that it had the umph to take alot of big game animals. Ironic I never heard of anybody attempting this feat in any other mid-bore handgun ;)

Only after the 10mm was dropped from the FBI lineup did it find a home into the hunting arena. Kinda like what happen with the 41magnum ( another LEO duty round that now has a nice spot as a hunting round in a lite mid-bore magnum ).

It all boils down to what you like, both cartridges are great and the 357magnum is quite interesting if you pick up a book, magazine or any other documentation going back 30-40plus years ago ;)

MakeMineA10mm

01-04-2007, 20:41

Originally posted by noway
Tho one correction on the pressure being reduce, it wasn't because it was too "high" it was because the mfgs start making reduced sized revolvers. The orginal spec 357mag 158gr at 1500fps and a honest 800 plus fpe was done out of a N frame revolver not a K or J frame revolver nor a scandium or aluminum or some other alloy. CUP, PSI, CIP or whatever method of pressure used is ilrevalant. We aren't trying to compare pressues we are trying to compare energy and performance levels. Who care if one is done in CUPs and the other in PSI if both are loading within the boundary of the set peak pressures limits as establish by authoritive authorities like SAAMI or CIP. Then also factor in the bullets of today and in the past where the same.

Actually, you're wrong on this. The loads started having lower pressures LONG before the K-frame 357s came out, and a few decades before the J-frame 357s came out. The initial pre-WWII load w/ the pure lead gas-checked 158gr was VERY high-pressure and high velocity. They discovered it had a leading problem and wasn't great on the guns, if you shot them exclusively, and not mixed with 38s for practice... To fix the leading, they switched to a jacketed bullet, and found that the pressures increased to dangerous levels, so they lowered the load. Then WWII came along and all production switched to the war effort.

After the war, before Bill Jordan had talked S&W into making the Model 19, when commercial production returned, the load was lowered again (albeit just a little - like 50fps). Then, the model 19 came along and everything was fine as long as 38s were primarily shot and 357s saved for occasional/duty use. But, by now, the original 1935 load had been reduced twice in pressure. It's been reduced more since then, and that's probably partially because of the small-frame guns, but it's also because of battering of (even) the larger pistols. Look into S&W's history and why they've changed the designs to beef them up. They've re-engineered all of their magnum revolver designs over the years to reduce this effect. - An irrefutable fact.

From: http://www.gunblast.com/MilesFortis-AKChurch_BuffaloBore.htm
A late ’60s import, this is dimensionally about equal in size to a 5 ½ inch Ruger Vaquero. With a 6" barrel, it weighs in at a full 46 ounces. The test gun has rather loose, sloppy chambers, and an equally loose firing pin bushing. Firing pin strikes on Winchester 125 grain ammo shows large deep strikes. For some reason, likely either softer primer cups or higher pressure, the Buffalo Bore ammo, tended to flow primers somewhat around the firing pin, and this occasionally tied the revolver up. Since neither of two newer long guns showed any similar problems, we chalk this up to a failing of the gun. Nonetheless, we wouldn’t use this gun with this ammo.

AND:
In our earlier Gunblast workup on the 180 grain heavy .357 magnum load, we reported really good accuracy and iffy reliability out of the Hawes (J P Sauer made) single action revolver.

These reliability problems were pretty specific. Primers pushed into the firing pin bushings on the venerable import, and this tied up rotation. This problem was not present in any other gun, and subsequently Church's Herter's Powermag .357, another ageable J P Sauer item, has duplicated this once with Winchester 125 grain ammo.

In Email conversation with Buffalo Bore ramrod Tim Sundles, he revealed that he'd already had second thoughts about primer toughness. So, subsequent lots of the 180 grain penetrator have a new, silver colored primer.

Many delays prevented timely follow-up after receipt of the newer ammo, but today we were finally able to retest it in the same gun.

Basically, it is more efficient to state what didn't happen: the primers did nothing but ignite the powder, the accuracy didn't come to any less than the really good previous experience, and reliability failed to disappoint. It just went off, still with impressive recoil, but no hang-ups whatsoever.

(The underlining in the second quote above is mine.)

Combining these two cases, we can conclude one thing for sure: This Buffalo Bore load is on the ragged edge of maximum safe pressures. The folks publishing this website and the owner of Buffalo Bore blame it on soft primer cups, but there's a difference between primer cups that are out-of-spec soft, and a load that is so hot that they have to switch to a brand/design of primer that has the hardest or thickest cup they can find.

A non-canister lot of powder still burns and creates pressure the same way a cannister lot does. The difference is that it may be idealized for a certain cartridge which may get you 50fps over the broad range of cannister powders that are available nowadays. To get significantly more, or to get a certain bullet weight to a certain velocity, takes more pressure. And, guess what? We have a load showing pressure signs! (Big suprise:upeyes: )

This argument is a lot like the caliber wars that happen between 10mm and 40S&W shooters who load the 40 hot and argue that the 10mm has little to no advantage over the 40... What they are ignoring is that the 10mm is loaded well within industry pressure standards while they are playing at the ragged edge with a case w/ shorter wall thickness at the case head and a smaller combustion chamber. Like with this 357 Magnum load, they may get away with it for awhile, but if it is used by enough people, in enough guns, there will be "an incident", or two, or more... That's all it will take to either get the load discontinued or rumors that there is something wrong with them or the guns made in this caliber, or.....whatever other excuses, I mean theories, crop up.

Anyway you want to cut it, there's no free lunch. Let's compare safe loads, if we're going to compare any at all... You're hanging your hat on the whole argument on one load from one manufacturer, and it's a dubious load at that.

MakeMineA10mm

01-04-2007, 21:05

Originally posted by MakeMineA10mm
... but has anyone else noticed the absence of the original poster? Anyone remember who he is, without scrolling to the top of the page and looking??? :shocked: (I didn't.)

Since he started it, I think we should try to determine what HE is really trying to compare and thinks is a valid test?

And, the reason I posted this above and commented twice in even earlier posts above about comparing the standard duty guns (like a 4" GP-100 or S&W 686 vs. the Glock 20 w/ stock 4.6" barrel), is that I'm guessing the original poster wanted to know, as a practical matter not an academic matter which of the two cartridges is more powerful.

I think it's scientifically valid to test two identical revolvers in the two calibers, or two identical T/C Contenders in these two calibers, but what most people want to know is: "in the most likely/common guns in these two calibers, which one is more powerful?" I doubt the original poster cares which one wins the scientific test in a gun that incredibly few people own and even less use...

I'd still like to see the comparison, where the only variable is the cartridge, in two identical guns, if you use say, three common "standard" factory loads in each. That would be informative. I'd also like to know; however, which one is more powerful as a PRACTICAL matter in the guns most likely to be carried/used... One cannot escape the fact that the 357 is a revolver cartridge and suffers from the barrel-cylinder gap, while the 10mm doesn't in the auto-loading pistols...

MakeMineA10mm

01-04-2007, 22:20

OK, so I'm bored tonight.... I made up a chart of most-powerful 357 Mag and 10mm loads ranked by energy:

Cartridge Bullet weight Velocity (fps) Energy (ft.lbs.) Bbl. length Manufacturer
10mm 135 1600 767 4.6” Double Tap
357Mag 158 1475 763 4” Buffalo Bore
10mm 155 1475 750 4.6” Double Tap
357Mag 170 1400 740 4” Buffalo Bore
10mm 180 1350 728 5” Buffalo Bore
10mm 200 1275 722 4.6” Double Tap
10mm 165 1400 718 4.6” Double Tap
10mm 215 1225 717 4.6” Double Tap
357Mag 125 1600 710 4” Double Tap
357Mag 180 1300 676 4” Double Tap
10mm 180 1300 676 4.6” Double Tap
10mm 230 1120 641 4.6” Double Tap
357Mag 200 1200 640 4” Double Tap
10mm 200 1200 639 5” Buffalo Bore
10mm 135 1400 588 4.6” Cor-Bon
10mm 150 1325 585 4.6” Cor-Bon
357Mag 110 1500 555 4” Cor-Bon
357Mag 125 1400 544 4” Cor-Bon
10mm 165 1250 537 4.6” Cor-Bon
357Mag 158 1235 535 4” Winchester
357Mag 145 1290 535 4” Winchester
357Mag 140 1300 525 4” Cor-Bon

I only included 357 Magnum loads out of a 4" barrel and 10mm loads out of a 4.6" or 5" barrel (which cut out the Winchester Silvertip 10mm).

Note how every manufacturer, except Buffalo Bore, can load the 10mm hotter than their loads in 357 Magnum.

Although Winchester's listed load for the 10mm STHP was out of a 5.5" barrel, actual velocities people here out of their G20s are between 1225 and 1250 (I get 1275 from my old lot of STs). At the lowest figure of 1225fps, this load gives 583 ft.lbs. of Muzzle Energy, which means the Winchester data is consistent with Cor-Bon and Double-Tap in terms of Winchester still getting more out of their 10mm than they do out of their 357 loads...

Let's see, Cor-Bon, Winchester, and Double-Tap all are able to load the 10mm to a heavier level than they can the 357. Buffalo Bore is the only one who can do it the other way around, and then, not by much, and they are still beaten by Double-Tap's 10mm loads.

No flattened or punctured primers here. Just full-horse loads that none of the companies are worried about listing for sale on their website... And, the 10mm wins.

Photocop

01-04-2007, 22:43

I think we can all agree that both cartridges when fully loaded are so close that it's probably "splitting hairs" to debate which is more powerful. They both have advantages in certain categories.

My 2 cents are this: The 10mm, since it is a semi-auto cartridge, is superior for defensive handgunning for the reasons that Colorado Glocker stated. It can be carried in hi-capacity autos (Our beloved G20!) with three times the capacity that a standard revolver can offer. There are some 7 or 8 shot revolvers out there, so there might be a little less difference, but either way, you're still talking over twice as much capacity. Additionally, the semi-auto pistol, and particularly the G20, tames recoil better than standard revolvers typically do so I think there would be an improvement in muzzle flip and recoil, which means faster follow-up shots.

I also still think that even though the velocities and muzzle energies are pretty close, the 10mm's greater circumference and heavier bullet weights might have some as-of-yet unmeasured advantage when it comes to causing internal damage to human targets.

Hoopty

01-05-2007, 01:20

You can easily add a +2 base to make it 17 rounds for the G20 too. :thumbsup:

10mm4ever

01-05-2007, 04:57

Originally posted by TheGlock23Guy
I noticed on the Doubletap website that the 357 velocities were from a 4 inch barrel while the 10mm loads were from a stock g20 barrel which is 4.60 Not really fair to compare them that way is it? For ****s and giggles lets say every 1inch in length you gain a 100 fps then maybe you should add 60 fps onto the 357 loads to make things more equal! I disagree. A revolvers barrel is measured from forcing cone to muzzle, whereas an autos is measured from breechface to muzzle, so the auto's at a disadvantage because its chamber is INCLUDED in the barrel measurement. Therefore, the 4 inch barreled .357 is still given more actual barrel length than the 4.6 inch barrel of the G20. The only fair comparison between both, would be to fire both rounds from test barrels of "true" equal length, add 1.25 inches(max. overall length of 10mm, if memory serves)to the 10mm's barrel, or fire them both from revolvers of equal barrel length(S&W 610 VS. 686,etc.). In a more "honest" comparison like that, I'll take the 10mm! It will make up in mass and frontal what it slightly lacks in velocity.:thumbsup:

Sig_NZ

01-05-2007, 05:07

We need the BOX O TRUTH on this one! The final show down!!

357 Magnum Vs 10mm Auto!

Someone email the BOX O TRUTH guys now! I looove pictures of ballistics tests!

the G20 smokes the 357Mag

Damn Straight I reckon!:rofl:

noway

01-05-2007, 10:48

10mm4ever you are 100% right that revolvers bbl are measured from FC outward hence the only fair comparison so that nobody can call foul would be 2 identical like revolvers ( 610 vrs 686,27etc... for example ) and with the same bbl length and condition ( BC gap ) This would be the best you can get or maybe a contender series with the same bbl length.

One thing which is truely true the loooooonger bbls would be more advantageous to the 357magnum and to some of the same but lesser degree with the 10mm. A 357mag can burn alot more powder, alot more slower burning powder at that , and hence the potential to make more energy because of this.

( i.e look at lil'gun,2400,H110 in 357magnum loads ) You can't even get nowhere close to using any of the above in our 10mm cases.

Hogdon has a std load on their website ( review it if you don't believe me ) that pushes a 125grain bullet out of a 10" vented test bbl at over 1800fps. Dudes that a pure 900fpe of energy ;) even some of their laod data refelects back to the orginal 15Xgr at 1500 plus or more fps.

Just like the old saying of " the 10mm shines when it's reloaded", the same can be said of the 357magnum and even more so.

also to add to the pepsi challenge, if anybody has the guns and are local I will provide all items ( chrono, range fee, buy the ammo and have it shipped, and bring it unopen to the range on test date/time )

It would be nice to have a 3rd party person video the testing or record it for documentation so that nobody can say noway fudge the test in favor of 357mag or 10mm. I'm 100% serious on this pepsi challenge, we could post it on GT as sticky and put to rest the assumptions and speculations. I alot of you guys will be shock.

yes capacity and size of the guns are an issues, but that's not the jest of the discussion it's 357mag vrs 10mm in the ultimate world series showdown not G20/29 with 10-17rounds vrs "insert some other gun/revolver " with 6-9 rounds capcities. Any any revolver aganist like-wise semi-auto, the revolver is ALWAYS handicap when it comes to capacity.

;)

Bullman

01-05-2007, 11:28

If you could find one of those Coonan 1911 style pistols that shoot .357 magnum you could test against a Delta or a Dan Wesson or Kimber.:supergrin:

HK45Mark23

01-05-2007, 19:20

I think you not only need a chronograph and similar guns, but a Ransom rest. Also I still contend that you need to test similar wheel guns, similar Simi Autos and similar 18” rifles. Also testing comparable ammunitions is critical. I am not sure yet what constitutes comparable ammunition but maybe it would be something such as same bullet weight and velocity reported by the manufacturer.

If testing identical vented and non-vented hand guns with a Ransom rest through a chronograph as well as testing virtually identical 18” long guns we should be able to get a more accurate picture.

For your statement that the 357 produces 900ft lbs E, it actually produced 899.20071047957371225577264653641 out of a vented 10” barrel.

I am not sure but I think out of a G-20 10MM produce 767 ft lbs E. That was Double Tap 135gr @ 1600ft per sec. out of a standard G-20.

How would the Double Tap 10MM 135gr fair out of a 10” barrel. This is especially curious considering that the barrel length of the G-20 is including chamber length and the revolver is not.

That is why a 357 1911 style and a 10mm style 1911, as well as identical wheel guns, and including say 18” rifles are required to actually get to the bottom of this.

I mean really if you think about it, the 10MM case is .992” or 25mm. The G-20 barrel is 3.608” or 92mm once removing the chamber.

Even compensating for the venting due to the gap of a revolver it still does not seem quite right to compare 10” 357 to a 3.6” 10mm.

http://marina.fortunecity.com/harbour/347/10mm01.html Here is some 10MM data, especially maximum pressure data for 357 and 10mm. It also goes to detail the .38-40 the father of the 10mm

You know that even though the 10MM is shorter it is fatter and that does constitute more cace capacity

Here is a list of long guns in 10MM http://marina.fortunecity.com/harbour/347/10mm07.html

Here is an exerpt I found at

http://www.bren-ten.com/id7.html
This is from the Dornaus & Dixon 1984 Bren Ten catalog:
The Norma factory loaded 10mm Auto cartridge is a center fire, rimless, brass cased, straight walled, large caliber pistol cartridge. It measures 1.250 inches in overall length with the bullet measuring 10.16 (.40") millimeters in diameter. It uses a special Norma powder designed expressly for optimum muzzle velocity while maintaining safe chamber pressures, and uses a standard .210" diameter large pistol primer. The bullet is a copper alloy full jacket, lead core design, and has a truncated cone shape (Jacketed Truncated Cone or JTC). Bullet weight is 200 granis (13 grams practical). Out of a Norma 5" test barrel (the length of the Bren Ten barrel, full-sized models), muzzle velocity is 1200 feet per second, and produces a moderate average chamber pressure of 37,000 c.u.p. (copper units of pressure). Kinetic energy at the muzzle is 640 foot pounds. Relative Stopping Power on the Hatcher Scale is 72 (30 R.S.P. on the Cooper Short Form). The 10mm Auto moves the striking pendulum farther than the .45 ACP from the same distance, out of the same gun (the Bren Ten shoots both rounds). Because of the unique design of the Bren Ten, the 10mm Auto cartridge has the felt recoil of the .45 ACP 230 grain hardball round out of a Colt Government Model, yet it retains more kinetic energy at 100 yards than the .45 ACP has at the muzzle. The large bullet cross sectional density, along with the velocity and kinetic energy, combine to produce a truly effective cartridge. Ballistically, the closest comparable cartridge to the 10mm Auto is the .41 Magnum. The 10mm Auto cartridge has been designed and developed to be the optimum combat pistol cartridge.

Case Capacity & maximum pressures
10mm 25 gr. water 53,000cup
357 magnum 26 gr. water 46,000cup

Here is the load data from http://ammoguide.com/

357 Magnum Bullet Make & Wt. (grs) Muzzle Vel. (fps) K. E. (ft-lbs)

1. 110 Speer 2467 1487
2. 125 Hornady 2302 1471
3. 140 Speer 2069 1331
4. 150 1868 1162
5. 150 Nosler 1998 1330
6. 158 Speer 1738 1060
7. 158 1755 1081
8. 158 Hornady 1757 1083
9. 158 Hornady 1963 1352
10. 180 Hornady 1730 1196

10mm
135 Generic 1530 702
200 Hornady 1304 755

HK45Mark23

01-05-2007, 20:26

Case Capacity & maximum pressures
10mm 25 gr. water 53,000cup
357 magnum 26 gr. water 46,000cup

I really think this speaks volumes. Not only is the case only 1 gr. less in volume (proving that even though it (10mm) is shorter, being fatter makes up for case volume) but the case is built stronger.

This is proven by the fact that the 10mm is able to withstand 7,000 cup more than the .357 Mangum, 41, and .44 Magnum cases.

This increase in pressure tolerance makes up for case capacity IMHO.

The limit on the pressure of the 357 is balanced by the less 1 gr. of case capacity in the 10mm.

In my previous post, I posted some hand load data from a website. That data really spoke volumes about the 357, but it did not tell what test gun/barrel was used.

It showed over 300 loadings for 357 and just over 80 for 10mm.

I am still curious if all things are equal and larger barrel firearms are used if that the 10MM can’t compete with the 357 heads up.

Never the less, out of shorter handgun and pistol offerings the 10MM is still equal to the 357 and beats it in cartridge capacity easily.

noway

01-05-2007, 22:29

Qs
I really think this speaks volumes. Not only is the case only 1 gr. less in volume (proving that even though it (10mm) is shorter, being fatter makes up for case volume) but the case is built stronger.

Where are we pulling this case is stronger data from ? and strong than the 44mag or 41mag?

remember you are comparing a semi-auto chamber to a straight wall chamber with a rim that's normally insert into a hole vrs a hole with a slope edge & lack of a full rim. In general theory, you have to really mess up big time to burst a rim or web on a straight wall revolver cartridge. They are naturally more stronger than a semi-auto rim, hence we have cartridges like 454casull or 500mag that easily makes more pressure than a common semi-auto proof round ( 40-60kpsi )

I read reports of some straight wall revolvers case shooting loads that top just under 70kpsi without case failure. Other than excessive pressure on the recoilshield, that was the only thing noted.

This all means what?

That might be the reason it's stronger ( 10mm e.g ) but has no bearing else on anything posted on the two with regards to energy and performance. The need for a stronger piece of brass is due to the lack of a full support , this would make sense and justify the need for a stronger brass. Once again what it means in regards to energy,velocities and if the 10 is truely more powerfull than 357, means nothing.

I would also bet a 9mm case is also stronger by design also, so as a 9x23 or 9x25 ;)

MakeMineA10mm

01-05-2007, 23:24

I think noway is right on the issue of case strength. Case "strength" is rather a misnomer.

The engineers who establish the requirements and construction standards of the cases must look at many variables, including: pressure of the cartridge, type of action(s) the cartridge is used in, neck tension requirements, range of age and strengths of weapons the cartridge is used in, desired performance of the load, and a few other factors.

Remember that the cases are engineered for one loading by the factory engineers. The fact that we can reload cases repeatedly is due to the characterisitc of brass to spring back, and sometimes we have to do some home re-engineering of the cases to make them last longer (primarily with rifle cases--annealing).

Now, that's not to say that there is a difference in strength between cases, but this must be viewed from the standpoint of looking at all of the variables that have been engineered for. For example, the 357 Mag can be used in weapons as old as 73 years old (and actually even older for the oldest 38SPL revolvers that had bored-through chambers, but that's not an accepted circumstance of use), while the 10mm hasn't been around longer than 25 years. When considering the differences in operation of the typical weapons each caliber is used in, and I think a comparison of case strength between these two is meaningless. Now, a comparison of case strength between the 40S&W and the 10mm has significant relevance, because they are loaded in very similar (and sometimes identical) firearms, and there are many other parallels.

The real issue here with the 357 & 10 is the difference in case capacity, max pressure standard, and bore diameter. Case capacity is beneficial to the 357, but the other two go to the 10mm.

Again, see my listing of loads (in my post on the bottom of page 1 of this thread) from four manufacturers, showing that, except for Buffalo Bore, all of them load their 10mms to higher power levels than they do the 357.

JKG

01-05-2007, 23:37

:popcorn:

This is a great thread. I would also like to see a test with the following:

1. 10mm vs. 357 in T/C barrels.
2. 610 vs. 686 (or other 357 with similar barrel-cylinder gap to the 610)

I think the original poster asked for a comparison between 10mm and 357, not G20 vs. 686. To me, this implies that we are talking ballistics of the cartridges themselves.

JKG

01-05-2007, 23:40

deleted

JKG

01-05-2007, 23:48

Originally posted by MakeMineA10mm
OK, so I'm bored tonight.... I made up a chart of most-powerful 357 Mag and 10mm loads ranked by energy:

Cartridge Bullet weight Velocity (fps) Energy (ft.lbs.) Bbl. length Manufacturer
10mm 135 1600 767 4.6” Double Tap
357Mag 158 1475 763 4” Buffalo Bore
10mm 155 1475 750 4.6” Double Tap
357Mag 170 1400 740 4” Buffalo Bore
10mm 180 1350 728 5” Buffalo Bore
10mm 200 1275 722 4.6” Double Tap
10mm 165 1400 718 4.6” Double Tap
10mm 215 1225 717 4.6” Double Tap
357Mag 125 1600 710 4” Double Tap
357Mag 180 1300 676 4” Double Tap
10mm 180 1300 676 4.6” Double Tap
10mm 230 1120 641 4.6” Double Tap
357Mag 200 1200 640 4” Double Tap
10mm 200 1200 639 5” Buffalo Bore

This is actually a good comparison. I was going to mention that a G20 vs. a 4" 357 would be a good comparison of 'typical' gun platforms for each caliber.

The G20 might have a shorter effective barrel compared to the 4" 357, but the 357 has the barrel-cylinder gap. Almost a wash...

JKG

01-05-2007, 23:54

Originally posted by MakeMineA10mm
OK, so I'm bored tonight.... I made up a chart of most-powerful 357 Mag and 10mm loads ranked by energy:

Cartridge Bullet weight Velocity (fps) Energy (ft.lbs.) Bbl. length Manufacturer

357Mag 158 1475 763 4” Buffalo Bore
10mm 155 1475 750 4.6” Double Tap

The #2 and #3 top loads provided by MMA10MM in the table shows that the 158gr 357 has more velocity than the 155gr 10mm. Based on this, it seems that the 357 is superior in that weight range. The 10mm has the edge in the bullets that are heavier and lighter.

HK45Mark23

01-05-2007, 23:57

Case Capacity & maximum pressures
10mm 25 gr. water 53,000cup
357 magnum 26 gr. water 46,000cup

This information came from http://ammoguide.com is no one reading all the information.

I thought it was common knowledge that we are comparing 357 to 10mm. This site says that the 10mm is operating at higher pressures than the 357, 41 and 44 magnum.

http://marina.fortunecity.com/harbour/347/10mm01.html

The 10mm is a strong cartridge and is able to hold up to punishing pressures. The case was designed to withstand 53 000cup, a very impressive feat when other automatic handgun cartridges fall below 40 000cup. Most commercial loads have a mean pressure starting at 37 000cup and some of the more powerful loads go up to 45 000cup. Next to the .45ACP (22 000cup), and 9mm (35 700+cup) maximum pressures, the 10mm Auto is powerful indeed. Comparing the 10mm to magnum cartridges, the maximum pressures range from 46 000cup for the .357MAG down to 43 700 for the .41MAG and .44MAG.

This from www.ammmoguide.com

The .357 Magnum, introduced in 1935, held the distinction of being the world's most powerful handgun cartridge for quite some time. Even shooters of the big .45 auto are impressed with full-power .357 Magnum loads.

The cartridge was developed from the .38-Special. Outward dimensions are identical, except the Magnum case is .135-inches longer. This slight increase is not necessary to achieve the .357's ballistics... the .38 Special case has quite enough volume for that. Rather, it is to keep .357 Magnum ammunition from fitting into .38-Special handguns. Magnum cartridges develop around two-and-a-half times more pressure than

.38 Special rounds and a handgun has to be specifically designed to handle them.

Just as the .38 Special was "stretched" into the .357, the Magnum was stretched (first by wildcatters, then by Remington) into the .357 Remington Maximum.

In the 1950's, Great Western Firearms produced Colt single-action style handguns and offered a ".357 Atomic". However, this was not a new wildcat but simply a name given by them for a specific load in the .357 Magnum - 16.0 grains of 2400 combined with a 158 grain bullet. (NOTE: this powerful load is 2 grains more than the AmmoGuide listed load at http://ammoguide.com/cgi-bin/aiviewl...880543 - start below 14.0 if using this powder and bullet combination.) Today, the "Atomic" moniker has been reborn with a genuine wildcat - the .375 Atomic.

Current .357 Magnum factory listings include a 158-gr. bullet at 1235 fps with 535 ft-lbs. of energy, all at the muzzle of a 4" barrel.

SPECIFICATIONS

Bullet Diameter:
.357 in.

Max Overall Length:
1.600 in.

Rifling Twist:
1-in-18.75 in.

Rifling Lands:
6

Case Capacity (est):
26 gr. water

Primer Size:
.175

NOMINAL PERFORMANCE

Bullet Weight:
158 gr.

Muzzle Velocity:
1235 f.p.s.

Muzzle Energy:
535 ft-lbs

10mm again from www.ammoguide.com

The 10mm Auto represents a relatively recent attempt to produce a cartridge of small size and maximum performance. Introduced in 1983, the powerhouse is the brainchild of Jeff Cooper and associates, with the goal of producing an optimal combat cartridge and weapon.

The cartridge was co-developed with the Bren-Ten semi-auto pistol, a derivation of the respected Czech CZ-75 design and originally intended primarily for military and law enforcement applications. The original manufacturer of the Bren-Ten, Dornaus & Dixon Enterprises of Huntington Beach California, is out-of-business.

Some 10mm Auto specifications approach high-power rifle loads, such as a mean working pressure of 37,000 psi and a maximum pressure of 44,000 psi. Producing substantially more muzzle energy than a .357 Magnum, it is double that of the .45 ACP.

A Smith & Wesson 10mm Auto was adopted by the FBI as their standard issue sidearm in the late 1980's. Limiting it's general commercial appeal is the heavy recoil of the 10mm, as many shooters seem to prefer the less-powerful .40 S&W Auto as an alternative to the forceful 10mm.

The 200 grain load has a muzzle velocity of 1200 fps and 635 ft-lbs energy from a 5-inch barrel.

SPECIFICATIONS

Bullet Diameter:
.400 in.

Max Overall Length:
1.260 in.

Rifling Twist:
1-in-16 in.

Rifling Lands:

Case Capacity (est):
25 gr. water

Primer Size:
.175

NOMINAL PERFORMANCE

Bullet Weight:
200 gr.

Muzzle Velocity:
1200 f.p.s.

Muzzle Energy:
636 ft-lbs.

JKG

01-06-2007, 00:07

One other thing to consider is the fact that all these tests seem to be done with a single barrel. To make a valid test, you would need to test numerous rounds thru several barrels. When you chrono a load you are really testing the ammo and the barrel.

It wouldn't be practical but we should test qty=5, 357 T/C barrels with 5 rounds of each load vs. the same in 10mm.

Looking at the chart provided by MMA10MM, we can see that 180gr loads in 10mm vs. 357 vary by 50fps. Is this a differce in the cartdridges or barrels? If DoubleTap or Buffalo Bore used a diffenent barrel they might get a different velocity and the rankings based on energy could change.

In the end, they are both great rounds, but loaded to the max my bet would be on the 357. I have no data to back this up, just a guess. I like the 10mm for capacity, but I like the 357 for ease in getting ammo.

noway

01-06-2007, 00:07

{The real issue here with the 357 & 10 is the difference in case capacity, max pressure standard, and bore diameter. Case capacity is beneficial to the 357, but the other two go to the 10mm.}

and

{ Again, see my listing of loads (in my post on the bottom of page 1 of this thread) from four manufacturers, showing that, except for Buffalo Bore, all of them load their 10mms to higher power levels than they do the 357.}

And this may be true but we all fail to see that the 357magnum is so much more. I can take you to 3 mfg that ( yes the people that make powders, have test bbl to measure pressue/velocities ) and they have loads iaw with set std that produce energy with "common" jacket bullets from the mid 800s to low 900fpe.

No matter what ninja metsubushi we thrown into samurai court yard ;) , their not one 10mm load that from any common powder mfg that lists mid 800-to-low900fpe levels using regular established bullets weights. Nor have any mfg loads for OEM 10mm handguns make these power level. In truth the 10mm is on par with the 357magnum loads of today and would be beat silly with the loads from the past.

btw: one current powder mfg shows loads nearing 920fpe of energy from a 5.6" bbl :banana: I haven't been brave enough to try it but one day I just might ;)

Company like DT/Corbon/BB have attempted to revived the 357magnum but in all fairiness it's popularity sunk just as quick as the rush fro semi-autos. It also laughable at minum when we have these threads on 10mm vrs 357magnum and even more laughable when we start "saying it's in 41magnum terrority" and burtsing a gut when we compare it to a 44magnum.

The 357magnum is not a wimp and the performance potential in energy alone is much greater with this straight wall cartridge that's been a round the block much longer than the 10mm.

Then if you factor in lead bullets that can do much faster @ lesser pressure, the 357magnum leaps in great jumps and stride over what the 10mm can do.
;)

{Based on this, it seems that the 357 is superior in that weight range. The 10mm has the edge in the bullets that are heavier and lighter.}

Any proof of this statement and where's your evidence? Must I remind you a 357mag-180grain from a 6" ruger and make near 900fpe of energy. As shown by a respectfull source.

and for this statement ;
Current .357 Magnum factory listings include a 158-gr. bullet at 1235 fps with 535 ft-lbs. of energy, all at the muzzle of a 4" barrel. and the key wording is current.

Just like the current 10mm load outside of BB/DT offferings for the 10mm makes about the same in performance. You see you can twist the information to make even a 9mm look better.

As for cups and psi as reference from ammoguide, they aren't cross-related and have no directly correlation to pressure. This information is mis leading at best. a 10mm runs at 37.5kpsi as set by governing authorities like SAAMI. Most if not all load providers provide PSI for the 10mm vrs CUPs. CUPs hasn't been used for this modern cartidge in ages.

as stated before the the "round" and not guns the SD , penetration, energy, and proven performance on the 357magnum has been recorded for over 70 years now.

btw, Still hearing crickets on that "pepsi" challenge. I know somebody here has 2 like guns and would care to try the pepsi challenge ;)

jkg, I'll join you in that :popcorn:

JKG

01-06-2007, 00:26

Originally posted by noway

{Based on this, it seems that the 357 is superior in that weight range. The 10mm has the edge in the bullets that are heavier and lighter.}

Any proof of this statement and where's your evidence? Must I remind you a 357mag-180grain from a 6" ruger and make near 900fpe of energy. As shown by a respectfull source.

I based my statement on the chart provided by MMA10MM where 135gr, 180gr, and 200gr bullets in 10mm had more energy than the 357. These are from Buffalo Bore, DoubleTap, etc.

I actaully agree that the hottest 357 handload will have more energy than the hottest 10mm, but I don't pretend to know much about the pressure levels and primer problems.

We need someone to take the challenge with factory ammo, and some hot reloads based on published recipes for extra fun.

Bullman

01-06-2007, 00:33

I think this is starting to hurt my head a little.

HK45Mark23

01-06-2007, 00:38

I never compared one measurement to another. Meaning I used the same standard of measurement.

Last time I checked just because the Metric system came into play, it did not all of a sudden make the English system absolutely invalid.

The purpose of my statements is that if you read the data I presented, the two cartridges were compared in the same paragraph to the other in the same scale or pressure measurement system. It did not once say that ammo 1 has a pressure of 4 on a scale of Z and ammo 2 has a pressure of 132 on a scale of X.

This is what you insinuated.

On the other hand it is true that current standards are relevant, but one of your own arguments is the standards of the 357 of old are so far superior to the limited offerings and standards of today.

So I bring up the standard of old and your argument is that the measuring system is archaic.

Kind of seems argumentative and counterproductive to me.

I can’t help but to think that the information presented is not being devoured. First of all, one of my post showed the 357 with a load data producing a ME production of nearly 1500 ft lbs ME. Goodness nothing in a 10mm comes close to that.

Well at least we don’t think it does, because we don’t know what type of gun that 357 load was shot through, if it is fact that it was a 16” or 18” barrel then that changes everything.

I agree that a straight wall chamber is able to sustain higher pressures, but some of the aftermarket barrels for the G-20 are fully supported barrels. So that becomes a mute point if comparing the G-20 with an after market 6”+ barrel.

MakeMineA10mm

01-06-2007, 03:05

Originally posted by noway
And this may be true but we all fail to see that the 357magnum is so much more. I can take you to 3 mfg that ( yes the people that make powders, have test bbl to measure pressue/velocities ) and they have loads iaw with set std that produce energy with "common" jacket bullets from the mid 800s to low 900fpe.

No matter what ninja metsubushi we thrown into samurai court yard ;) , their not one 10mm load that from any common powder mfg that lists mid 800-to-low900fpe levels using regular established bullets weights. Nor have any mfg loads for OEM 10mm handguns make these power level. In truth the 10mm is on par with the 357magnum loads of today and would be beat silly with the loads from the past.

btw: one current powder mfg shows loads nearing 920fpe of energy from a 5.6" bbl :banana: I haven't been brave enough to try it but one day I just might ;)

Company like DT/Corbon/BB have attempted to revived the 357magnum but in all fairiness it's popularity sunk just as quick as the rush fro semi-autos. It also laughable at minum when we have these threads on 10mm vrs 357magnum and even more laughable when we start "saying it's in 41magnum terrority" and burtsing a gut when we compare it to a 44magnum.

The 357magnum is not a wimp and the performance potential in energy alone is much greater with this straight wall cartridge that's been a round the block much longer than the 10mm.

Just a few points:

1. Links or even sources for any of these assertions?

2. I'm guessing that the only loads that approach or go over 800fpe are being tested out of barrels 6" long or longer. (Measuring the 357 Revolver barrel from breach-face to muzzle - same as G-20 barrels are measured - and we get a 4" barrelled revolver actually has about a 5.4" barrel. Course, I'm not complaining, because the revolver loses most of the extra length through the barrel-cylinder gap. BUT, I would object to comparing a 4.6" Glock barrel to the equivalent of a 12" barrel-the 10" vented test barrel you mentioned earlier. That's hardly an apples-to-apples comparison.)

3. Yes, the 10mm would be beat silly by those over-pressure, gun-beating loads of the past...

4. I think you're contradicting yourself about DT/Cor-Bon/BB trying to revive the 357, with the implication that they can't, even with this remarkable loads, because you turn right around and say the 357 has been around so long... Well, doesn't that mean that there are tons of revolvers out there that could/would benefit from these heavy loads? I think these companies are selling them quite nicely, or they wouldn't be cataloging them... In reality, neither the age of the cartridge or the popularity of the platform are relevant to a comparison of their capabilities.

As far as your test goes and those poor crickets. I have both several 357 revolvers AND several 10mms, but I have neither that would be on identical-format platforms. (All the 357s are revolvers and all the 10s are autos.) Besides, then we have the logistics of getting together half-way across the country. Wanna fly up here w/ a 10mm revolver and a 357 auto? If so, I'll host the test. (Got a super nice range and there's no fees, cause I'm a member.) I'll let you bring whatever loads you want, as long as you let me test whatever loads I want.

noway

01-06-2007, 11:52

{1. Links or even sources for any of these assertions?

2. I'm guessing that the only loads that approach or go over 800fpe are being tested out of barrels 6" long or longer. (Measuring the 357 Revolver barrel from breach-face to muzzle - same as G-20 barrels are measured - and we get a 4" barrelled revolver actually has about a 5.4" barrel. Course, I'm not complaining, because the revolver loses most of the extra length through the barrel-cylinder gap. BUT, I would object to comparing a 4.6" Glock barrel to the equivalent of a 12" barrel-the 10" vented test barrel you mentioned earlier. That's hardly an apples-to-apples comparison.)

3. Yes, the 10mm would be beat silly by those over-pressure, gun-beating loads of the past...

4. I think you're contradicting yourself about DT/Cor-Bon/BB trying to revive the 357, with the implication that they can't, even with this remarkable loads, because you turn right around and say the 357 has been around so long... Well, doesn't that mean that there are tons of revolvers out there that could/would benefit from these heavy loads? I think these companies are selling them quite nicely, or they wouldn't be cataloging them... In reality, neither the age of the cartridge or the popularity of the platform are relevant to a comparison of their capabilities.}

For your statements of # 1 -2 , look at alliant and accurate powders they have loads generating 800fpe plus out of a barrel of 5.6 or 6" bbls, Hodgdon has loads replicate the same thing, but using a 10vented bbl and lastly VithaVou (sp?) have loads makeing over 900 but out of a 7" test bbl. So pick what ever poison that you like. Don't know of any 10mm load published within the last 10 years or less that does that. These are published loads by powder mfgs and their "pressure" and velocitiy testing and data. Not mine not yours nor any assumptions. if you can show me one 10mm load from any mfg that does the same and not over pressure or need an 3rd party bbl with ultra tighter chambers than I will eat my shoe. hence my pepsi challenge.

( sounds of crickets )

and your bbl re-evaluation is quite funny. The bbl starts at the FC on a revolver hence that's why to do you apple-apple comparison you get two like revolver like I suggested before ( i.e 2 n frames of the same bbl length ) and then you have a apple to apple and no where to guess at where to start the measurement at ;)

I would put my dollars on a 357magnum N frame like used in the olden days and of a 6" length when compared to a 610 with a 6" bbl that the 357magnum will take off and leave the 10mm behind. Now shortening that bbl down to 4" or 2" it would be a whole nuf'ther level ( mad/tv ;) ). Here I wouldn't be to quick to say the same more so with a 2" bbl and since we don't have any factory 2" bbl revolvers in 10mm , we couldn't relly prove that. But I have a hunch. Maybe I need to pull my chrono out and fire a BB laod from my 6''incher and then do the same with one of my 2.5-3" bbls and then get a on paper velocitiy difference. 2" of bbl in a long case 357mag don't give it alot of room todo anything ;)

FWIW:The 4" bbl 357mag would still outdo (my hunch ) the 10mm but not by much.

for your statement of #3 you are now asserting that the loads in the past where over-pressure and gun-beating, any proof of that? or like you did above, a link from a reliable source that has proven this?

Do you have any idea of how much a N frame can take before being beaten to death? The same frame gun that used to host even more powerfull loads than that of a 357mag or 10mm, like that of a 44mag/41mag and possible 45colt for smith-wesson ( for example ). "Then don't even get me started on a Ruger SA or Doubleaction revolvers", which both are overbuilt when it comes down to the 357magnum chambering. Next time your in a gun shop look at a 357mag ruger and a 44mag and then get back to me. Compare both in how it's built to let's say a G20 or G29 and then weigh them if you can ;)

So the ball is right back at you "Do you have any proof "? , link, magazine article from the current or past ;)

And lastly for your #4 , prior to ammo mfg'er like BT/Corbon/DT, the 357magnum has seriously been neutered from what was offered in the past. If you doubt me, look at past publish ammo specs or if you can find old loading manual/magazines like what I did, you will see the load of today are nowhere like that of the loads of the past. I have magazine back from the 70s showing alot of 158gr loads making an easily 800fpe and over in a 6" bbl using powder like 2400 or BlueDot for example. Basically it now ( currently ) boils down to the mfg'er make rounds that suitable for all guns, liabilty, lawsuits, and a host of other issues. So the 357magnum performance has been handicap.

NOTE:One thing I want to point out also that gives more leverage to the pro 10mm crowd, the powder of the past also changed. The same #2400 alliant we have today is not the same #2400 back in 198X. So the performance in some cases ( pun intended ) have diminished due to the mfg'er change of his ingredients.

and for this;

{Last time I checked just because the Metric system came into play, it did not all of a sudden make the English system absolutely invalid.
}

CUPs and PSI have nothing todo with metric or standard measurements. So I don't know where you are getting this at no the statements of 53K or 46Kcups and specially when it comes down to a 10mm.

Also the 10mm is not measured by CUPS as far as I know and seen;

and for this ;

{I agree that a straight wall chamber is able to sustain higher pressures, but some of the aftermarket barrels for the G-20 are fully supported barrels. So that becomes a mute point if comparing the G-20 with an after market 6”+ barrel.}

I don't think any 10mm aftermarket bbl will provide the FULL support at the base ofthe case like a revolver cylinder. If it has feed ramp it will not be 100% support.

Also keep in mind the rimmed and lack of rim on the 10mm, the rims helps support the case and provides more strength. Yes cutting that extractor groove weakens the case, not by much but it does.

Lastly ammoguide is okay ( i guess ) but seeing the data like what my father would say "straight from the horse mouth " is the best proof ;) If you find some old time loader or pawn shops, or garage sells of people who reload, you will amaze at what you can pick up. I have a few documents that goes back many years on the 44spc and 357magnum and you would be suprise at what the loads in the past did ( safely if I might add ) and then see the neutered loads of todays.

Mfg'ers like dt/corbon/bb/garrett/tac ( yes I know they are out of business ) all have done things in the last decade to revive some of the cartrides to the level that where seen when keith/jordan/skeeter/casull where big names when it came to handguns ;)

noway out..... going to the range to try some of my waterdown 357mag and 10mm loads ;)

chow ......

:popcorn:

MakeMineA10mm

01-06-2007, 14:10

Originally posted by noway
For your statements of # 1 -2 , look at alliant and accurate powders they have loads generating 800fpe plus out of a barrel of 5.6 or 6" bbls, Hodgdon has loads replicate the same thing, but using a 10vented bbl and lastly VithaVou (sp?) have loads makeing over 900 but out of a 7" test bbl. So pick what ever poison that you like. Don't know of any 10mm load published within the last 10 years or less that does that. These are published loads by powder mfgs and their "pressure" and velocitiy testing and data. Not mine not yours nor any assumptions. if you can show me one 10mm load from any mfg that does the same and not over pressure or need an 3rd party bbl with ultra tighter chambers than I will eat my shoe. hence my pepsi challenge.

and your bbl re-evaluation is quite funny. The bbl starts at the FC on a revolver hence that's why to do you apple-apple comparison you get two like revolver like I suggested before ( i.e 2 n frames of the same bbl length ) and then you have a apple to apple and no where to guess at where to start the measurement at ;)

I would put my dollars on a 357magnum N frame like used in the olden days and of a 6" length when compared to a 610 with a 6" bbl that the 357magnum will take off and leave the 10mm behind. Now shortening that bbl down to 4" or 2" it would be a whole nuf'ther level ( mad/tv ;) ). Here I wouldn't be to quick to say the same more so with a 2" bbl and since we don't have any factory 2" bbl revolvers in 10mm , we couldn't relly prove that. But I have a hunch. Maybe I need to pull my chrono out and fire a BB laod from my 6''incher and then do the same with one of my 2.5-3" bbls and then get a on paper velocitiy difference. 2" of bbl in a long case 357mag don't give it alot of room todo anything ;)

FWIW:The 4" bbl 357mag would still outdo (my hunch ) the 10mm but not by much.

OK, I'll go look at Alliant, Accurate, and Hodgdon manuals I have. BUT you've already admitted that they are all using extra-long barrels to make that energy level. When you say "Don't know of any 10mm load published within the last 10 years or less that does that," well, of course you don't, because you (nor anyone else) haven't found any 10mm data that's shot out of a barrel longer than 5.5"... Nosler is the only company that uses a longer barrel (6"), and their data is notorious for being not full-power, not giving us pressure readings, and not giving us exact velocities of their loads (they round to nearest 25 or 50fps).

And, my point about barrel lengths is more about your argument here trumpeting these vaunted 800-900fpe loads and degrading the 10mm's lowly power level compared to them. You're argument that the 357 800-900fpe loads beats the 10mm is pointless, because you're not comparing equitable barrel lengths. I also realize that's why you'd like to do the field test with identical guns, and I agree with that. But in the mean time, don't think you're winning any converts based on an argument where the 357 has a 1.9" to 6.7" longer barrel than the 10mm...

Originally posted by noway
for your statement of #3 you are now asserting that the loads in the past where over-pressure and gun-beating, any proof of that? or like you did above, a link from a reliable source that has proven this?

Do you have any idea of how much a N frame can take before being beaten to death? The same frame gun that used to host even more powerfull loads than that of a 357mag or 10mm, like that of a 44mag/41mag and possible 45colt for smith-wesson ( for example ). "Then don't even get me started on a Ruger SA or Doubleaction revolvers", which both are overbuilt when it comes down to the 357magnum chambering. Next time your in a gun shop look at a 357mag ruger and a 44mag and then get back to me. Compare both in how it's built to let's say a G20 or G29 and then weigh them if you can ;)

So the ball is right back at you "Do you have any proof "? , link, magazine article from the current or past ;)
Actually, I've already addressed this in one of my posts on page 1. The old loads were punishing to the gun, and the pressures were considered too high:
Originally posted by MakeMineA10mm
Actually, you're wrong on this. The loads started having lower pressures LONG before the K-frame 357s came out, and a few decades before the J-frame 357s came out. The initial pre-WWII load w/ the pure lead gas-checked 158gr was VERY high-pressure and high velocity. They discovered it had a leading problem and wasn't great on the guns, if you shot them exclusively, and not mixed with 38s for practice... To fix the leading, they switched to a jacketed bullet, and found that the pressures increased to dangerous levels, so they lowered the load. Then WWII came along and all production switched to the war effort.

After the war, before Bill Jordan had talked S&W into making the Model 19, when commercial production returned, the load was lowered again (albeit just a little - like 50fps). Then, the model 19 came along and everything was fine as long as 38s were primarily shot and 357s saved for occasional/duty use. But, by now, the original 1935 load had been reduced twice in pressure. It's been reduced more since then, and that's probably partially because of the small-frame guns, but it's also because of battering of (even) the larger pistols. Look into S&W's history and why they've changed the designs to beef them up. They've re-engineered all of their magnum revolver designs over the years to reduce this effect. - An irrefutable fact.
Sources? I'll go look and see if I can find some exact dates, but don't hold you're breath on it, as I don't have THAT much time...

*BUT, the data on the beefing-up of the S&W N-Frames can be found at John Taffin's website, as well as the S&W forums, I'm sure. Failing that, you could call S&W.
*The information on Bill Jordan and the time-line on introduction of the S&W Model 19 should be very easy to find. - It's been published numerous times in many magazines and websites.
*The information on the load-levels coming down before WWII is from an article I read in the mid-80s in Shooting Times about the introduction of the 357 Mag, and, among many other things, it talked about Doug Wesson shooting a Polar Bear w/ an 8" S&W Registered Magnum and showed the picture of him and another fellow (his guide?) squatting over it with the gun prominently displayed. The article went on to talk about how the original LSWC-GC bullet load was hot as hell, was down-loaded soon after introduction, and down-loaded again when the switch was made to jacketed bullets.
*The information on load data and factory loads coming down is from an editorial in a fairly recent Handloader Magazine, where the editor addressed a LOT of letters they are getting about "watered down" load data and factory loads. He pointed out that most people blame this on lawyers, and he agreed that IS a factor, but he also pointed out that the new pressure testing equipment that is PSI based rather than copper-crusher based is MUCH more accurate and factories are starting to realize that some of their old "standard" loads are a little on the hot side. This is a Handloader mag that was published in the last 18 months, so it should be easy to track down.

Originally posted by noway
And lastly for your #4 , prior to ammo mfg'er like BT/Corbon/DT, the 357magnum has seriously been neutered from what was offered in the past. If you doubt me, look at past publish ammo specs or if you can find old loading manual/magazines like what I did, you will see the load of today are nowhere like that of the loads of the past. I have magazine back from the 70s showing alot of 158gr loads making an easily 800fpe and over in a 6" bbl using powder like 2400 or BlueDot for example. Basically it now ( currently ) boils down to the mfg'er make rounds that suitable for all guns, liabilty, lawsuits, and a host of other issues. So the 357magnum performance has been handicap.

NOTE:One thing I want to point out also that gives more leverage to the pro 10mm crowd, the powder of the past also changed. The same #2400 alliant we have today is not the same #2400 back in 198X. So the performance in some cases ( pun intended ) have diminished due to the mfg'er change of his ingredients.
Well, for the first half of this, see my response directly above about current testing methods being more accurate and prooving that some older loads were not safe. Also, keep in mind, you're back to a 6" barrel, so now you're back to comparing a 4.6"-5" 10mm barrel with the equivalent of a 7.3" barrel. Hardly apples-to-apples.

I will agree whole-heartedly with you on the bullet diameter/barrel length thing though. The 10mm has a larger expansion ratio, which, when combined with a very similar powder combustion chamber (25grs vs. 26grs), means the 10mm will develop better velocities with the same load in a short barrel and the 357 Mag will do better in a longer barrel. Very accurate and astute point.

I guess that brings up another good question: At what barrel length does this effect equalize between these two calibers?

This is kind-of a critical question, because if that point is at 5", then for a duty-size gun (4" 357 & 4.6" 10mm), the 10mm is, theoretically, the more efficient caliber, but in longer barrels (6"), the 357 is the more efficient. Of course, efficiency isn't a measure of power, but it is a measure...

MakeMineA10mm

01-06-2007, 16:08

Well, I did a quick look at the published data on the three powder company's websites, and found the following (I pulled only the highest-velocity loads for each bullet weight):

Bullet Bullet Style Bullet Brand Powder Start Max Max Velocity Bbl. Pressure Crtdg. OAL Case Primer Source
180 Partition Nosler Lil’Gun 15.0 1422 10” 34,500cup 1.575” Win. WSPM Hodgdon website
180 JFP 2400 12.5 1300 5.6” 32,700psi 1.580” Fed 200 Alliant website
180 XTP Hornady AA#9 11.7 13.0 1293 6” 43,000cup 1.575” WSPM Accurate Arms 3.1
170 FMJ 2400 12.1 1365 5.6” 33,600psi 1.585” Fed 200 Alliant website
170 FMJ Sierra AA#9 12.2 13.5 1334 6” 45,000cup 1.565” WSPM Accurate Arms 3.1
158 XTP Hornady H-110 16.7 1591 10” 40,700cup 1.580” Win. WSPM Hodgdon website
158 XTP Hornady AA#9 13.5 15.0 1470 6” 44,900cup 1.580” WSPM Accurate Arms 3.1
158 JSP Blue Dot 10.7 1420 5.6” 33,300psi 1.580” Fed 200 Alliant website
150 JHP Nosler AA#9 13.7 15.2 1499 6” 43,000cup 1.590” WSPM Accurate Arms 3.1
146 HJ-SWC-HP Speer H-110 17.2 1691 10” 42,600cup 1.535” Win. WSPM Hodgdon website
140 JHC Sierra AA#9 13.9 15.4 1529 6” 43,100cup 1.575” WSPM Accurate Arms 3.1
125 XTP Hornady H-110 22.0 1966 10” 41,400cup 1.590” Win. WSPM Hodgdon website
125 JSP Blue Dot 14.5 1795 5.6” 34,000psi 1.580” Fed 200 Alliant website
125 JHP Nosler AA#9 15.3 17.0 1685 6” 45,100cup 1.575” WSPM Accurate Arms 3.1
110 JHP Blue Dot 16.0 2040 5.6” 33,800psi 1.580” Fed 200 Alliant website
110 XTP Hornady AA#9 16.6 18.4 1803 6” 43,700cup 1.575” WSPM Accurate Arms 3.1

180 = 808 fpe (10” bbl.)
170 = 703 fpe (5.6” bbl – non-vented)
158 = 887 fpe (10” bbl)
150 = 748 fpe (6” bbl)
146 = 926 fpe (10” bbl)
140 = 726 fpe (6” bbl)
125 = 1072 fpe (10” bbl)
110 = 1016 fpe (5.6” bbl – non-vented)

All-in-all, pretty impressive. I'm surprised you didn't bring up the light-bullet loads that develop over 1000 fpe...?

When looking at the data, though, it is pretty apparent that we're trapped and back to the old barrel length/test barrels vs. comparable barrel length/real-life guns thing, since all of these loads are not representative of what kind of power you're getting in real life in real guns...

Obviously, we're back to the range test idea....

And, just to throw another monkey-wrench in the works, I'd like to point out that we've kind-of gotten side-tracked for the last 10 posts or more, debating based on Muzzle Energy ALONE. Now, it is well- and widely-known fact that ft.lbs. of Muzzle Energy is a biased method of measurement. It is biased towards velocity and away from bullet weight. (Just look at the 110gr data for the 357 Mag above.) That's why folks have come up with other methods for comparing relative power between cartridges (with their own biases, of course), such as IPSC Power Factor (which benefits bullet weight and ignores bullet diameter...). And, while I'm not saying any one of these is more right than another, I think that Ft.Lbs./Muz. Energy is the least relevant when it comes to hunting and self-defense. Why? Well, would you go looking for a bear to shoot with the most-powerful 357 Magnum load according to muzzle energy? (That would be the 125gr load...) Nah, I didn't think so...

Therefore, I'd re-itterate (as I alluded to in my very first post in this thread where I commented that I look at lots of comparative measurement methods) that the 10mm is unquestionably more powerful than the 357, if looked at in a fair way (comparable barrel lengths and comparable SD bullets) with multiple methods of measurement. Maybe not HUGELY more powerful, but unquestionably more powerful, if looked at in a meta-study comparison of many/all of these measurement methods.

noway

01-06-2007, 17:02

Okay got back from the range after shooting my waterdown loads, what have I missed...... over the last 4 hours or so ;)

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Take a look at the VV website and you find a few more to add to that list and it's a 7" test bbl. Once again at or above 800 to mid 900fpe range ;)

And then I have a stack of magazines with 357mag loads and review going back to the 80s and then alot of published loaddata also.;)

The above list is okay but almost all you listed where jacket bullets. You throw some lead loads into the mix and you're in another whole ballgame ;)

such as IPSC Power Factor (which benefits bullet weight and ignores bullet diameter...). And, while I'm not saying any one of these is more right than another, I think that Ft.Lbs./Muz. Energy is the least relevant when it comes to hunting and self-defense. Why? Well, would you go looking for a bear to shoot with the most-powerful 357 Magnum load according to muzzle energy? (That would be the 125gr load...) Nah, I didn't think so...

the above I totally agreed on you except on PF which is not even a issues with most hunting/sd scenario. PF was develop by "competitive shooting groups" i.e IPSC primarly. Never heard of anybody giving a damm on what PF should I use for "insert here ' whatever your doing or even mention the word PF in reccommending a hunting load when it comes to handguns. It's just as silly as TKO forumla and means absolutely nada/niegh/nilch/arimasen when it comes to hunting.

e.g

I can launch a slow 200grain 45acp with a big 220PF # and yet it wouldn't mean crap as far as it's used for hunting polar bears

Bullet selection and construction and weight is the big items when it comes to hunting. A 110gr 357magnum with a weak design at 1000fpe vrs a solid heavy hardcast at 700fpe would be a better pick for the above Polar Bear and then you better be right on with your shooting ;). Energy means nothing in this scenario. Alot of people get carried away with energy and figure it's some magical power that stops and kill animals and humans.

I've said in the pass and I'll say it again now, in all of the animals I've killed from a squirrel up to a deer, I never once thought "energy alone" did the dirty deed ;)

Massive trauma, broken bones, destroyed organs, loss or blood and/or air is what kills and stop animals and people. NOT pure energy ;)

Brass Nazi

01-06-2007, 17:20

Originally posted by noway
Alot of people get carried away with energy and figure it's some magical power that stops and kill animals and humans.

I've said in the pass and I'll say it again now, in all of the animals I've killed from a squirrel up to a deer, I never once thought "energy alone" did the dirty deed ;)

Massive trauma, broken bones, destroyed organs, loss or blood and/or air is what kills and stop animals and people. NOT pure energy ;)

Best information in this whole thread.

MakeMineA10mm

01-06-2007, 17:40

Originally posted by noway
Bullet selection and construction and weight is the big items when it comes to hunting. A 110gr 357magnum with a weak design at 1000fpe vrs a solid heavy hardcast at 700fpe would be a better pick for the above Polar Bear and then you better be right on with your shooting ;). Energy means nothing in this scenario. Alot of people get carried away with energy and figure it's some magical power that stops and kill animals and humans.

I've said in the pass and I'll say it again now, in all of the animals I've killed from a squirrel up to a deer, I never once thought "energy alone" did the dirty deed ;)

Massive trauma, broken bones, destroyed organs, loss or blood and/or air is what kills and stop animals and people. NOT pure energy ;)

Well, at least we found another point of agreement...:hugs:

But this now begs the question: By what basis of measurement can we validly compare the two cartridges?

One of the reasons I do the meta-studies is because I figure Fackler, Taylor (TKO), Cooper (PF) and some others have both enough experience and credibility to establish some formulaes that some people do pay attention to. And, I didn't say I'm applying PF to hunting, and I know many who do apply it to comparing cartridges for self-defense (since that's what IPSC was supposed to be about back in the day...)

I don't 100% agree with any of them, but with understanding of each of their biases, a meta-study of them can enlighten us on something. You seemed to be satisfied enough with FPE to use it in many posts to proclaim the superiority of the 357...

lumberjack

01-06-2007, 19:17

JKG

01-06-2007, 23:02

Originally posted by lumberjack
Sorry, I skipped the miles of long posts of agrument when I read this post.

A 4" barrel in a revolver has quite a bit more barrel than a 4.6" Glock barrel. Think about it.

(Hint, the G20 barrel only has about 3.5-3.6" of actual barrel.)

Here is comparing a near 4" revolver barrel with the G20 barrel.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v639/10mmsheepdog/DSC03712.jpg

Agreed, but how do you address the barrel-cylinder gap that is not present in the auto?

noway

01-06-2007, 23:06

hint a revolver has a leak at one of the bbl that's not the muzzle. So it in reality it all works out about the same. That picture doesn't put any of that into retro spect ;)

If somebody really wanted to squash 10mm vrs 357mag and revolver vrs semi-auto all they have todo is get a 610 and 686 and be on their way ;)

( sounds of crickets chirpping in the background )

http://www.timwerx.net/odds/suzumushi/suzumushi.wav

Once any of the nayser do that, then you will be truely enlighted or displease depending on what end of the field your on ;)

MakeMineA10mm

01-07-2007, 00:05

And, now we're just going over the same ground again, and again.

I think a fair and interesting test would be:

1. Revolver to revolver (so the only variable is the cartridge) with same-length barrels.
2. Sealed-breach to sealed breach (whether both pistols are autos or T/C Contenders) with same length barrels.
3. 357 Revolver w/ 4" barrel and 10mm w/ 4.6" (Glock) or 5" (1911) barrel, as these are commonly-accepted and practically same-size duty-type or "belt" guns.

I think separating out the barrel-cylinder gap issue would be good for scientific purposes, but the "handicap" of the barrel-cylinder gap in test 3 is just "the breaks" because the 357 is a wheel-gun round, and the 10mm is not. If it's fair to call a win for the 10mm because of magazine capacity, it's also fair to call it "too bad" for the 357 for having a barrel-cylinder gap, as far as commonly-used guns.

I can't re-itterate the importance of this enough. Just as it is not right to compare ballistics of 1000 fpe for the 357 out of a 10" barrel (that virtually no one owns or uses) to a 4.6" Glock barrel, it's not fair to require the 10mm to be handicapped in comparison to the 357, when 90% of 357s are revolvers (with barrel-cylinder gap and barrel measurement benefit) and 95% of 10mms are autos...

Pacificus

01-07-2007, 02:29

Originally posted by Skeezer
I have a Ruger Gp100 6inch barrel stainless, and a g-20 .I love both these calibers. On thing many in this thread have not discussed is the ability to shoot smoking hot loads in the wheel gun(Reloads.) You would have to change spring settings in the G20 to get the kind of snort i can load up in a .357 round.

The reason that isn't mentioned is because they are comparing apples to oranges. The .357 is a revolver cartridge and the 10mm is not. The .357 receives a tremendous velocity advantage from longer length barrels. A six inch barrel is the minimum needed for a .357 to achieve it's best performance. This whole debate is pretty meaningless really because the cartridges are so different. However:

The .357 has been a hunting cartridge for a long time. Every type of game in North America has been taken with it. If you use the .357 as intended, that is with a long barrel and with handloaded rounds it is a very good hunting cartridge. It works even better in a rifle, and that isn't something you can say about the 10mm. It also has been used in law enforcement for years and it has a record for stopping people that is second to none. In every category the .357 has proven to be superlative. But it is a revolver round and as such it will never compete for having the highest magazine count, as if that mattered when measuring a cartridge's capabilities.

The 10mm is an oddball round that has not been adopted by many people. It is a very capable cartridge but it has a number of negatives to it as well. One sign of it's limited appeal is the fact that it is not found for sale in many places. You can always find .357 mag for sale anywhere they sell ammunition, not so with the 10mm. Does that qualify as an advantage to the .357? I think so.

When making a strict comparison of the statistics the 10mm has an apparent edge although it is so slight as to probably be meaningless in the real world. Bearing that in mind it is not really fair to try to make a contest between the two cartridges and decide one wins and the other loses. Both are very capable but being a revolver round there is a good argument that the ability to handload a long-barreled .357 gives it the edge. It may well also win in both flatness of trajectory and in overall power and penetration. To me, in the end the .357 is the more versatile round of the two. It can do anything you want from it from low velocity target shooting, to self defense use, to hunting. While the head to head comparison is probably not fair I think the overall advantage goes to the .357. I mean, I have seen long barreled .357s with scopes on them that guys actually hunt with. I don't think you see many people in the field hunting with a G20. And when it comes to self defense we know how well the .357 works. It only holds six, or seven, or eight rounds but as they say, if you can hit what you are aiming at you don't need more than one well placed round from a .357 magnum. Advantage: .357 magnum.