9mm 124+p vs 357mag 125 JHP is mag really better?

[Jack-O]

Assuming that both cart's were using the same projectile or very similar quality HP design, and that the platform was not a factor, which round really has the advantage?

my questions arise because they should produce the same permanent wound cavity, with very similar penetration depth. The legend of 357 mag is that it is this dominating man stopper, yet the 9mm has a legend of mediocrity. legends die hard I suppose.

Does the 357 really have any additional wounding effect over the 9, or does it just have more recoil?

I recently had a discussion about the difference between the 9 and 45 and used this picture.




The respondent pointed out that the "wound cavity" of the 45 appeared significantly larger in the picture. assuming that temporary stretch cavity is irrelevent in pistols What is the correct response to that? does the picture show permanent cavity or TSC as well?

[LOKNLOD]

Don't take this the wrong way, as I don't know how you meant it and just want to make sure we're on the same page:

You realize that's .357 SIG in the pic and not .357 Magnum, correct?

[Jack-O]

Don't take this the wrong way, as I don't know how you meant it and just want to make sure we're on the same page:

You realize that's .357 SIG in the pic and not .357 Magnum, correct?

yes.

the discussion I had was about the 9 vs 45 and I used that pic as an example.

[snubbie K]

Assuming a modern, properly designed bullet for each - chosen for it's terminal performance potential at the given velocities of each - the 9mm and the .357 calibers can be considered close to the same caliber.

The speeds may vary with each depending on powder charge and barrel length and such. Obviously, the faster round has the most kinetic energy to work with. Usually that is considered to be the .357 magnum. But short barrels and various low recoil loadings may cancel that potential out. A very "hot" 9mm will have more energy than a milder .357 (obviously) - since 124gr. and 125gr. are virtually the same.

In reality, though, if the bullet is chosen for it's ability to penetrate a proper distance (that depends on who you listen to - I like the FBI rendition), with proper expansion while doing so - extra kinetic energy is pretty much immaterial.

A wider projectile is somewhat better than a narrower projectile simply because of the wider permenant wound chanel involved. That assumes that it is deliverable with accuracy and that the design and speed give proper depth of penetration with the particular speed of the round.

A gun that can give proper depth of penetration with a bullet designed to expand to increase the wound chanel and control that depth of penetration - all delivered from a powder charge that is controlable for the particular shooter - is the "Holy Grail" of self defense ammo.

Energy figures, as such, mean nothing at all.

Depending on one or all of the variables considered in this "Holy Grail" - a full house .357 magnum or a low speed 9mm may be the best choice for you - and therefore the superior self defense round.

[Jack-O]

SnubbieK,

the 9 and 357 are EXACTLY the same caliber. I'm aware that a larger projectile will make a bigger hole.

My original questions still stand. Will the increased velocity of the 357mag cause any greater wound or have any greater effect than the 9mm?

[Marcus L.]

Jack-O,

The red dye shows the effects the bullet has had on the gel in the way of permanent and temporary cavity. In ballistic gel, the permanent cavity effects are very similar to those of muscle tissue.....but not so similar to temporary stretch cavity in actual tissue. Tissue is considerably more elastic than gel and when it comes to TSC, ballistic gel does not give an accurate model of what TSC actually does to muscle tissue.

For that, we must go back to using the operating table as our model. A considerable amount of impact energy(well over 1000ft-lbs) in combination with an unaerdynamic bullet profile must be used to generate a TSC that causes any sort of trauma or incapacitation effects on a living subject. Dr. Fackler covered much of this in great detail from both his, and dozens of trauma surgeons in the US.

Just to give you a brief history on how the .357magnum gained a reputation as a "man stopper". In the early days of hollow point designs(1970s and 1980s), ammunition manufacturers tested their bullet designs in water tanks. Water does not compress, and when a hollow point bullet begins penetrating the water the water that is being shoved into the hollow point must escape at the weakest point which is on the sides of the hollow point. So, the sides blow out and the hollow point mushrooms. However, human tissue is not 100% water and when actual shootings occured the hollow points did not open up reliably. Lower velocity calibers like the 9mm and .45acp were not working well, while high velocity calibers like the .357mag and .41mag made up for the poor hollow point designs with their velocity. So, these magnum calibers proved to be reliable in actual shootings with these early hollow point designs. The .357mag bullets expanded and caused more tissue destruction than a .45acp FMJ. It had nothing to do with impact energy. The .357mag bullets expanded to a diameter larger than that of a typical .45acp and destroyed more "stuff" as the bullet passed through the body.

In the late 1980s ammunition manufacturers began testing their hollow point designs in ballistic gel which more accurately simulates human muscle tissue. Since then, lower velocity calibers such as the 9mm, 40S&W, and .45acp open up just as reliably if not more reliably than the early .357mag HP designs in actual shootings. A modern .40S&W or .45acp hollow point load actually causes more destruction than a modern .357magnum round......or the .357sig for that matter. They enter the body bigger, expand bigger, and penetrate more deeply. In some cases, the 9mm performs better in "destroying things" than the .357sig because it can be loaded with better performing 147gr bullets.

Unfortunately, there is still a large number of gun owners that believe that muzzle energy is a determination of caliber effectiveness.....including a fair number of cops who may have gotten lucky 1, 2, or more times with their particular load and now refer to it as a lighting bolt. However, when you take a massive body of experience and knowledge such as that of the FBI, IWBA, and the Firearms Institute with the failures and successes included in their analysis......the .357sig/.357mag is really no better than the 9mm when you use modernized ammunition and are engaging human targets against commonly encountered barriers like those in the FBI protocol tests.

[LOKNLOD]

yes.

the discussion I had was about the 9 vs 45 and I used that pic as an example.

Gotcha. Sorry if it sounded condescending, you know the vagueries of interweb communication...

[Jack-O]

excellent. thank you.

so does the dye in the above picture show the ACTUAL permanent cavity or is there some stretching cracks in there as well?

It would appear that if those were only PWC that the 357 sig and 45 were in fact superior in tissue destruction, followed by 40 then 9mm

[shadowalker]

the 9 and 357 are EXACTLY the same caliber. I'm aware that a larger projectile will make a bigger hole.

The 9mm uses a bullet of .355 to .356 while the 357 magnum uses .357 to .359.

[TiroFijo]

The red dye shows the effects the bullet has had on the gel in the way of permanent and temporary cavity. In ballistic gel, the permanent cavity effects are very similar to those of muscle tissue.....but not so similar to temporary stretch cavity in actual tissue. Tissue is considerably more elastic than gel and when it comes to TSC, ballistic gel does not give an accurate model of what TSC actually does to muscle tissue.

For that, we must go back to using the operating table as our model. A considerable amount of impact energy(well over 1000ft-lbs) in combination with an unaerdynamic bullet profile must be used to generate a TSC that causes any sort of trauma or incapacitation effects on a living subject. Dr. Fackler covered much of this in great detail from both his, and dozens of trauma surgeons in the US.

Marcus, as I understand it, the red dye shows the volume of the gel that has fissures, NOT the permanent cavity, and (for the reasons you pointed out) the analysis of the bullet's performance disregards the TC and it is just basically expanded diameter*penetration. So this dyed volume really tells us very little, is this correct?

Is any effort made to discern the permanent cavity differences between a sharp HP vs one with smooth folded back petals, solid FP vs RN vs SWC, etc.?

Is the actual temporary cavity close to this fractured volume or it must be captured on a high speed film? Do you gain anything measuring TC in normal handgun calibers? Is any effort made in the FBI/IWBA protocols to measure TC, or is it just neglected or relegated to "secundary effects" (in case an inelastic organ/tissue is affected, etc.)?

Thanks in advance