9mm just as effective as .357 Mag. -- NOT!!!!

[K.Mooneyham]

Removed by me because I obviously posted in the wrong place. My apologies.

[WTR]

You either hit something important or you don’t. All the experts agree on this.

What the experts agree on, is that shot placement is key and trumps caliber in MOST cases. And since no 2 bullets travel the exact same path in identical bodies, there is no way to precisely compare. A 1/16 of an inch here and there DOES matter [greatly] when you are inside a chest cavity, according to both of my friends who are surgeons.

Incapacitation is another funny thing... Lots of people have been shot in the chest "A zone" and just collapsed. Lots of other people have been shot in the chest "A zone" and caused further damage and/or death, before collapsing. The bigger the caliber and the faster the projectile, the better chance [however small it may be] you have of speeding up incapacitation. That's why hollow points are more effective than ball- they open to a greater diameter. (and have sharp edges when they open that cut cleaner/bleed more) And why SD ammo is normally full power or +p.



**Now, if this were a black and white academic exercise, that translated accurately to real life with, we'd all carry a (insert caliber here) with (insert brand here) JHP's and 50% of the internet threads and 50% of gun store discussions would be over after pleasantries were exchanged.

I agree no two bullets and no two people will react the same. I agree a larger bullet with cross section density has a marginal advantage over a 9mm, and I also agree that a faster bullet as a he 357 Sig has a marginal advantage than a slower 9mm but the advantage isn’t great between the two. The energy of a 357 GD is roughly 500 and the energy of a 9mm +P is roughly 400, that 100 foot pounds of energy isn’t enough to matter greatly and that 357 Sig isn’t going to open more than the 9mm unless you want to argue more very fine details. So, as I said, either will be as effective, or they won’t taking what has been said into consideration.

I’m not arguing with anyone as the caliber debate will go on forever, just voicing my opinion and the opinion of others, experts and surgeons alike.

When it comes to my families, mine or just an innocent stranger' well being I will take ever advantage ( no matter how marginal) I can. Shoot what you want, I sending flying ashtrays until I can get to a long gun.

[Thunderbolt_47]

.357 Mag does develop much, much more energy than 9mm, and if you can find some super hot handload with a novelty bullet that would give 9x19 the level of stopping power of a commercial .357 round, then you can just do some super hot handload with a novelty bullet in .357 Mag and keep the arms race going...

However, I'm still using a 9mm for self defence. As much as .357 packs a serious punch, I'd rather have 17 rounds of 9mm in my Glock to defend myself rather than 6 rounds of .357, especially since the recoil on my 9mm pistol is lower and allows me to do quicker follow-ups and makes it easier to remain on target after letting a couple of rounds off.

Now, if I were living in bear country, I'd carry a .357 (if not a .44) revolver with hollow points in the woods, but I'm not.

[Charles L. Cotton]

You’re not getting larger permanent cavities due to velocity in handguns, only rifles. You’re only advantage is penetration depth, sometimes too much penetration as experienced by PD using 357 Sig Gold Dots going through people.

A very good friend was a surgeon before his untimely death. He disagreed with your statement. Plus, you ignore damage caused by the temporary would cavity.

The testing done by LuckyGunner.com also proves that faster pistol velocities do produce larger permanent would cavities and temporary cavities. Below are photos from testing .357 SIG 125 Gr. PDX-1 (1431 FPS) and 9mm +P Gold Dot 124 Gr (1157 fps). Obviously, the photos on the LuckyGunner.com website are not to scale since when printed at 100% actual size, they measure only 9" rather than 22". Therefore, the measurements of the permanent would cavity are understated, but their relative size comparison is accurate.

The numbers below were measured with a dial caliper on photos printed from the LuckyGunner.com website. The permanent wound cavity is scaled up to account for the scaling issue.

• .357 SIG 125 gr JHP @ 1,431 fps = .642" (approx. 1.57" actual) permanent wound cavity;
  9mm Speer Gold Dot +P 124 gr. JHP @ 1157 fps = .354" (approx. .86") permanent wound cavity.

Thus, with identical bullet weight, diameter and configuration (JHP) the .357 SIG traveling 274 fps faster produced a wound cavity that was 81% larger.

There are videos of each of these rounds being tested. There are on the LuckyGunner.com website, so I couldn't post a direct link. However, links to the page where these videos can be seen are listed below by caliber. The temporary would cavity caused by the .357 SIG at 1,431 fps was significantly larger and of longer duration/depth than the slower 9mm at 1,157 fps.

While no pistol round will achieve the temporary/permanent wound cavities seen with high velocity rifles, faster bullets do many larger temporary/permanent would cavities.

Speer Gold Dot +P 124 gr. 9mm JHP video - https://www.luckygunner.com/9mm-p-124-g ... ds#geltest
Winchester PDX-1 125 gr. 357 Sig JHP video - https://www.luckygunner.com/winchester- ... on#geltest

Chas.

The increase in velocity and energy of a .357 Sig Gold Dot over a 9mm +P Gold Dot is insignificant. You’re not getting the hydrostatic shock in handguns as you will with a rifle. A hit to a non-vital area isn’t going to kill you because it’s the mighty .357 Sig. You either hit something important or you don’t. All the experts agree on this.

Why are you changing your focus Tom? The data I posted was to refute your erroneous statement that "You’re not getting larger permanent cavities due to velocity in handguns, only rifles.." Now you want to talk about muzzle energy. I never said you get the same level hydrostatic shock with a handgun as with a rifle. Indeed, I specifically stated "While no pistol round will achieve the temporary/permanent wound cavities seen with high velocity rifles, faster bullets do make larger temporary/permanent would cavities."

The increase in velocity between the 357 SIG and the Gold Dot +P is hardly "insignificant." The additional 274 fps resulted in a larger temporary cavity with longer duration, as evidenced in the video to which I linked. The permanent cavity was 81% larger! You call that insignificant? Remember, the larger the wound cavity the greater the tissue and vascular damage and the faster incapacitation will be achieved.

Of course a CNS hit is far more likely to cause instantaneous incapacitation than is any hit in another area of the body. A CNS hit is better than a lung hit, which is better than a liver hit, which is better than a kidney, hit which is better than . . . I could go on and on. What you seem to discount is the impact of blood loss and, to a far lesser degree, pain on an attacker's ability or willingness to continue his attack on the victim.

If I have to defend myself or an innocent 3rd person, I'd prefer a CNS hit to lower the chance that my/our attacker may get off a fatal shot before being incapacitated. But if I can't get a CNS hit, then I want the attacker to be incapacitated as soon as possible and blood loss is Plan B.

I'm no fan of the .357 SIG (I don't own one) and I sometimes carry a 9mm. I also don't delude myself into believing that I am as well armed as I am with one of my 45ACP, 40 S&W, .357 Mag, 41 Mag., or 44 Mag. handguns.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Folks, remember the theme of this thread. It isn't that a 9mm is insufficient for self-defense. Paul's video responded to claims that "a 9mm is just as "powerful" as a 357 Mag."

Chas.

[TomS]

You’re not getting larger permanent cavities due to velocity in handguns, only rifles. You’re only advantage is penetration depth, sometimes too much penetration as experienced by PD using 357 Sig Gold Dots going through people.

A very good friend was a surgeon before his untimely death. He disagreed with your statement. Plus, you ignore damage caused by the temporary would cavity.

The testing done by LuckyGunner.com also proves that faster pistol velocities do produce larger permanent would cavities and temporary cavities. Below are photos from testing .357 SIG 125 Gr. PDX-1 (1431 FPS) and 9mm +P Gold Dot 124 Gr (1157 fps). Obviously, the photos on the LuckyGunner.com website are not to scale since when printed at 100% actual size, they measure only 9" rather than 22". Therefore, the measurements of the permanent would cavity are understated, but their relative size comparison is accurate.

The numbers below were measured with a dial caliper on photos printed from the LuckyGunner.com website. The permanent wound cavity is scaled up to account for the scaling issue.

• .357 SIG 125 gr JHP @ 1,431 fps = .642" (approx. 1.57" actual) permanent wound cavity;
  9mm Speer Gold Dot +P 124 gr. JHP @ 1157 fps = .354" (approx. .86") permanent wound cavity.

Thus, with identical bullet weight, diameter and configuration (JHP) the .357 SIG traveling 274 fps faster produced a wound cavity that was 81% larger.

There are videos of each of these rounds being tested. There are on the LuckyGunner.com website, so I couldn't post a direct link. However, links to the page where these videos can be seen are listed below by caliber. The temporary would cavity caused by the .357 SIG at 1,431 fps was significantly larger and of longer duration/depth than the slower 9mm at 1,157 fps.

While no pistol round will achieve the temporary/permanent wound cavities seen with high velocity rifles, faster bullets do many larger temporary/permanent would cavities.

Speer Gold Dot +P 124 gr. 9mm JHP video - https://www.luckygunner.com/9mm-p-124-g ... ds#geltest
Winchester PDX-1 125 gr. 357 Sig JHP video - https://www.luckygunner.com/winchester- ... on#geltest

Chas.

The increase in velocity and energy of a .357 Sig Gold Dot over a 9mm +P Gold Dot is insignificant. You’re not getting the hydrostatic shock in handguns as you will with a rifle. A hit to a non-vital area isn’t going to kill you because it’s the mighty .357 Sig. You either hit something important or you don’t. All the experts agree on this.

Why are you changing your focus Tom? The data I posted was to refute your erroneous statement that "You’re not getting larger permanent cavities due to velocity in handguns, only rifles.." Now you want to talk about muzzle energy. I never said you get the same level hydrostatic shock with a handgun as with a rifle. Indeed, I specifically stated "While no pistol round will achieve the temporary/permanent wound cavities seen with high velocity rifles, faster bullets do make larger temporary/permanent would cavities."

The increase in velocity between the 357 SIG and the Gold Dot +P is hardly "insignificant." The additional 274 fps resulted in a larger temporary cavity with longer duration, as evidenced in the video to which I linked. The permanent cavity was 81% larger! You call that insignificant? Remember, the larger the wound cavity the greater the tissue and vascular damage and the faster incapacitation will be achieved.

Of course a CNS hit is far more likely to cause instantaneous incapacitation than is any hit in another area of the body. A CNS hit is better than a lung hit, which is better than a liver hit, which is better than a kidney, hit which is better than . . . I could go on and on. What you seem to discount is the impact of blood loss and, to a far lesser degree, pain on an attacker's ability or willingness to continue his attack on the victim.

If I have to defend myself or an innocent 3rd person, I'd prefer a CNS hit to lower the chance that my/our attacker may get off a fatal shot before being incapacitated. But if I can't get a CNS hit, then I want the attacker to be incapacitated as soon as possible and blood loss is Plan B.

I'm no fan of the .357 SIG (I don't own one) and I sometimes carry a 9mm. I also don't delude myself into believing that I am as well armed as I am with one of my 45ACP, 40 S&W, .357 Mag, 41 Mag., or 44 Mag. handguns.

Chas.

Why do I bring up energy? Speed and mass defines energy and that’s what we’re talking about here. The US Army proved long ago using live animals that handgun calibers are incapable of producing the necessary temporary cavity to be an effective component of gunshot wounds, even the mighty 357 magnum.

According to Ballistics101 charts the 357 Sig GD has a 140 FPS speed advantage over the 9mm +P GD (which is not a boutique ammunition). As far as the permanent wound channel being 81% larger from such a marginal difference in speed when both calibers are the same diameter, that’s hard to believe.

Unless your using 9mm ball whizzing complete through people without dumping all its energy (there I ago again) into the target, current 9mm defensive loads are pretty effective at expanding and dumping this energy into the target. Is 9mm +P absolutely just as effective as 357 Sig, no it’s not, but it’s close enough. It sure isn’t 81% less effective.

As suggested, they’re are too many variables in bullet technology, shot placement and individual reactions to being shot to come to a definitive conclusion, and that’s why caliber wars persist.

I don’t fault anyone who wishes to take advantage of any increase in velocity or sectional density of any particular caliber. That’s why we have free will. I’m not a fanboy of any particular caliber and have owned all the service caliber handguns - they’re all fun to shoot.

[flechero]

You either hit something important or you don’t. All the experts agree on this.

What the experts agree on, is that shot placement is key and trumps caliber in MOST cases. And since no 2 bullets travel the exact same path in identical bodies, there is no way to precisely compare. A 1/16 of an inch here and there DOES matter [greatly] when you are inside a chest cavity, according to both of my friends who are surgeons.

Incapacitation is another funny thing... Lots of people have been shot in the chest "A zone" and just collapsed. Lots of other people have been shot in the chest "A zone" and caused further damage and/or death, before collapsing. The bigger the caliber and the faster the projectile, the better chance [however small it may be] you have of speeding up incapacitation. That's why hollow points are more effective than ball- they open to a greater diameter. (and have sharp edges when they open that cut cleaner/bleed more) And why SD ammo is normally full power or +p.



**Now, if this were a black and white academic exercise, that translated accurately to real life with, we'd all carry a (insert caliber here) with (insert brand here) JHP's and 50% of the internet threads and 50% of gun store discussions would be over after pleasantries were exchanged.

I agree no two bullets and no two people will react the same. I agree a larger bullet with cross section density has a marginal advantage over a 9mm, and I also agree that a faster bullet as a he 357 Sig has a marginal advantage than a slower 9mm but the advantage isn’t great between the two. The energy of a 357 GD is roughly 500 and the energy of a 9mm +P is roughly 400, that 100 foot pounds of energy isn’t enough to matter greatly and that 357 Sig isn’t going to open more than the 9mm unless you want to argue more very fine details. So, as I said, either will be as effective, or they won’t taking what has been said into consideration.

I’m not arguing with anyone as the caliber debate will go on forever, just voicing my opinion and the opinion of others, experts and surgeons alike.

I never said how much, just that it was more... but your illustration is much better- 25% more seems small to you but take 25% away from the 9mm and you have what, a .380? .380 falls below the minimum acceptable caliber, all the experts agree on this. So by your comparison, the 9mm is only marginally better than .380.

BUT... I bring all that up as a comparison only. Although I like .45acp better, I do carry 9mm when my wardrobe or schedule dictates I be more discreet.

Just poking the bear a little on a rainy Saturday!

[TomS]

It’s all good, brother. I agree that all the major calibers are only marginally better than the last concerning caliber effectiveness. Like you, I feel the 9mm is good enough. Shot placement and penetration are king.

But if you’re going to compare the 9mm to the 357 Sig in the same weight, you have to compare the 9mm +P and that 200 FPS speed or 100 FPE delivered energy is not vastly superior in any way. Marginally better, yes. And the wound channel of both is definitely not going significantly change.

Like I said, no argument from me, just stating an opinion. Opinions vary, studies vary, the debate will always continue...

I just realized I have been arguing against the 357 Sig and not the 357 Magnum, I apologize, I don’t know why it took this many posts to realize this. The energy dump would increase by another 100 FPE for a total of 200.

[Noggin]

Well if you want .357mag you do not have to settle for 6 rounds and a slow reload time. There is always this option:

[Charles L. Cotton]

You’re not getting larger permanent cavities due to velocity in handguns, only rifles. You’re only advantage is penetration depth, sometimes too much penetration as experienced by PD using 357 Sig Gold Dots going through people.

A very good friend was a surgeon before his untimely death. He disagreed with your statement. Plus, you ignore damage caused by the temporary would cavity.

The testing done by LuckyGunner.com also proves that faster pistol velocities do produce larger permanent would cavities and temporary cavities. Below are photos from testing .357 SIG 125 Gr. PDX-1 (1431 FPS) and 9mm +P Gold Dot 124 Gr (1157 fps). Obviously, the photos on the LuckyGunner.com website are not to scale since when printed at 100% actual size, they measure only 9" rather than 22". Therefore, the measurements of the permanent would cavity are understated, but their relative size comparison is accurate.

The numbers below were measured with a dial caliper on photos printed from the LuckyGunner.com website. The permanent wound cavity is scaled up to account for the scaling issue.

• .357 SIG 125 gr JHP @ 1,431 fps = .642" (approx. 1.57" actual) permanent wound cavity;
  9mm Speer Gold Dot +P 124 gr. JHP @ 1157 fps = .354" (approx. .86") permanent wound cavity.

Thus, with identical bullet weight, diameter and configuration (JHP) the .357 SIG traveling 274 fps faster produced a wound cavity that was 81% larger.

There are videos of each of these rounds being tested. There are on the LuckyGunner.com website, so I couldn't post a direct link. However, links to the page where these videos can be seen are listed below by caliber. The temporary would cavity caused by the .357 SIG at 1,431 fps was significantly larger and of longer duration/depth than the slower 9mm at 1,157 fps.

While no pistol round will achieve the temporary/permanent wound cavities seen with high velocity rifles, faster bullets do many larger temporary/permanent would cavities.

Speer Gold Dot +P 124 gr. 9mm JHP video - https://www.luckygunner.com/9mm-p-124-g ... ds#geltest
Winchester PDX-1 125 gr. 357 Sig JHP video - https://www.luckygunner.com/winchester- ... on#geltest

Chas.

The increase in velocity and energy of a .357 Sig Gold Dot over a 9mm +P Gold Dot is insignificant. You’re not getting the hydrostatic shock in handguns as you will with a rifle. A hit to a non-vital area isn’t going to kill you because it’s the mighty .357 Sig. You either hit something important or you don’t. All the experts agree on this.

Why are you changing your focus Tom? The data I posted was to refute your erroneous statement that "You’re not getting larger permanent cavities due to velocity in handguns, only rifles.." Now you want to talk about muzzle energy. I never said you get the same level hydrostatic shock with a handgun as with a rifle. Indeed, I specifically stated "While no pistol round will achieve the temporary/permanent wound cavities seen with high velocity rifles, faster bullets do make larger temporary/permanent would cavities."

The increase in velocity between the 357 SIG and the Gold Dot +P is hardly "insignificant." The additional 274 fps resulted in a larger temporary cavity with longer duration, as evidenced in the video to which I linked. The permanent cavity was 81% larger! You call that insignificant? Remember, the larger the wound cavity the greater the tissue and vascular damage and the faster incapacitation will be achieved.

Of course a CNS hit is far more likely to cause instantaneous incapacitation than is any hit in another area of the body. A CNS hit is better than a lung hit, which is better than a liver hit, which is better than a kidney, hit which is better than . . . I could go on and on. What you seem to discount is the impact of blood loss and, to a far lesser degree, pain on an attacker's ability or willingness to continue his attack on the victim.

If I have to defend myself or an innocent 3rd person, I'd prefer a CNS hit to lower the chance that my/our attacker may get off a fatal shot before being incapacitated. But if I can't get a CNS hit, then I want the attacker to be incapacitated as soon as possible and blood loss is Plan B.

I'm no fan of the .357 SIG (I don't own one) and I sometimes carry a 9mm. I also don't delude myself into believing that I am as well armed as I am with one of my 45ACP, 40 S&W, .357 Mag, 41 Mag., or 44 Mag. handguns.

Chas.

Why do I bring up energy? Speed and mass defines energy and that’s what we’re talking about here. The US Army proved long ago using live animals that handgun calibers are incapable of producing the necessary temporary cavity to be an effective component of gunshot wounds, even the mighty 357 magnum.

According to Ballistics101 charts the 357 Sig GD has a 140 FPS speed advantage over the 9mm +P GD (which is not a boutique ammunition). As far as the permanent wound channel being 81% larger from such a marginal difference in speed when both calibers are the same diameter, that’s hard to believe.

Unless your using 9mm ball whizzing complete through people without dumping all its energy (there I ago again) into the target, current 9mm defensive loads are pretty effective at expanding and dumping this energy into the target. Is 9mm +P absolutely just as effective as 357 Sig, no it’s not, but it’s close enough. It sure isn’t 81% less effective.

As suggested, they’re are too many variables in bullet technology, shot placement and individual reactions to being shot to come to a definitive conclusion, and that’s why caliber wars persist.

I don’t fault anyone who wishes to take advantage of any increase in velocity or sectional density of any particular caliber. That’s why we have free will. I’m not a fanboy of any particular caliber and have owned all the service caliber handguns - they’re all fun to shoot.

I was being polite when I asked why you changed your focus. Now I'll be blunt. You changed your story because you were wrong. You stated that increased velocity in a pistol round would not cause a larger permanent wound cavity. That was false as proved by the LuckyGunner.com testing. I posted the photos to prove that the increase was 81%. I don't care if you find it hard to believe or not. The numbers are easy to verify with a set of dial calipers. Next time, do so before insinuating I'm not telling the truth.

Your reference to "experts" is vague to say the least. Whose studies do you mean?

Chas.

[TomS]

You’re not getting larger permanent cavities due to velocity in handguns, only rifles. You’re only advantage is penetration depth, sometimes too much penetration as experienced by PD using 357 Sig Gold Dots going through people.

A very good friend was a surgeon before his untimely death. He disagreed with your statement. Plus, you ignore damage caused by the temporary would cavity.

The testing done by LuckyGunner.com also proves that faster pistol velocities do produce larger permanent would cavities and temporary cavities. Below are photos from testing .357 SIG 125 Gr. PDX-1 (1431 FPS) and 9mm +P Gold Dot 124 Gr (1157 fps). Obviously, the photos on the LuckyGunner.com website are not to scale since when printed at 100% actual size, they measure only 9" rather than 22". Therefore, the measurements of the permanent would cavity are understated, but their relative size comparison is accurate.

The numbers below were measured with a dial caliper on photos printed from the LuckyGunner.com website. The permanent wound cavity is scaled up to account for the scaling issue.

• .357 SIG 125 gr JHP @ 1,431 fps = .642" (approx. 1.57" actual) permanent wound cavity;
  9mm Speer Gold Dot +P 124 gr. JHP @ 1157 fps = .354" (approx. .86") permanent wound cavity.

Thus, with identical bullet weight, diameter and configuration (JHP) the .357 SIG traveling 274 fps faster produced a wound cavity that was 81% larger.

There are videos of each of these rounds being tested. There are on the LuckyGunner.com website, so I couldn't post a direct link. However, links to the page where these videos can be seen are listed below by caliber. The temporary would cavity caused by the .357 SIG at 1,431 fps was significantly larger and of longer duration/depth than the slower 9mm at 1,157 fps.

While no pistol round will achieve the temporary/permanent wound cavities seen with high velocity rifles, faster bullets do many larger temporary/permanent would cavities.

Speer Gold Dot +P 124 gr. 9mm JHP video - https://www.luckygunner.com/9mm-p-124-g ... ds#geltest
Winchester PDX-1 125 gr. 357 Sig JHP video - https://www.luckygunner.com/winchester- ... on#geltest

Chas.

The increase in velocity and energy of a .357 Sig Gold Dot over a 9mm +P Gold Dot is insignificant. You’re not getting the hydrostatic shock in handguns as you will with a rifle. A hit to a non-vital area isn’t going to kill you because it’s the mighty .357 Sig. You either hit something important or you don’t. All the experts agree on this.

Why are you changing your focus Tom? The data I posted was to refute your erroneous statement that "You’re not getting larger permanent cavities due to velocity in handguns, only rifles.." Now you want to talk about muzzle energy. I never said you get the same level hydrostatic shock with a handgun as with a rifle. Indeed, I specifically stated "While no pistol round will achieve the temporary/permanent wound cavities seen with high velocity rifles, faster bullets do make larger temporary/permanent would cavities."

The increase in velocity between the 357 SIG and the Gold Dot +P is hardly "insignificant." The additional 274 fps resulted in a larger temporary cavity with longer duration, as evidenced in the video to which I linked. The permanent cavity was 81% larger! You call that insignificant? Remember, the larger the wound cavity the greater the tissue and vascular damage and the faster incapacitation will be achieved.

Of course a CNS hit is far more likely to cause instantaneous incapacitation than is any hit in another area of the body. A CNS hit is better than a lung hit, which is better than a liver hit, which is better than a kidney, hit which is better than . . . I could go on and on. What you seem to discount is the impact of blood loss and, to a far lesser degree, pain on an attacker's ability or willingness to continue his attack on the victim.

If I have to defend myself or an innocent 3rd person, I'd prefer a CNS hit to lower the chance that my/our attacker may get off a fatal shot before being incapacitated. But if I can't get a CNS hit, then I want the attacker to be incapacitated as soon as possible and blood loss is Plan B.

I'm no fan of the .357 SIG (I don't own one) and I sometimes carry a 9mm. I also don't delude myself into believing that I am as well armed as I am with one of my 45ACP, 40 S&W, .357 Mag, 41 Mag., or 44 Mag. handguns.

Chas.

Why do I bring up energy? Speed and mass defines energy and that’s what we’re talking about here. The US Army proved long ago using live animals that handgun calibers are incapable of producing the necessary temporary cavity to be an effective component of gunshot wounds, even the mighty 357 magnum.

According to Ballistics101 charts the 357 Sig GD has a 140 FPS speed advantage over the 9mm +P GD (which is not a boutique ammunition). As far as the permanent wound channel being 81% larger from such a marginal difference in speed when both calibers are the same diameter, that’s hard to believe.

Unless your using 9mm ball whizzing complete through people without dumping all its energy (there I ago again) into the target, current 9mm defensive loads are pretty effective at expanding and dumping this energy into the target. Is 9mm +P absolutely just as effective as 357 Sig, no it’s not, but it’s close enough. It sure isn’t 81% less effective.

As suggested, they’re are too many variables in bullet technology, shot placement and individual reactions to being shot to come to a definitive conclusion, and that’s why caliber wars persist.

I don’t fault anyone who wishes to take advantage of any increase in velocity or sectional density of any particular caliber. That’s why we have free will. I’m not a fanboy of any particular caliber and have owned all the service caliber handguns - they’re all fun to shoot.

I was being polite when I asked why you changed your focus. Now I'll be blunt. You changed your story because you were wrong. You stated that increased velocity in a pistol round would not cause a larger permanent wound cavity. That was false as proved by the LuckyGunner.com testing. I posted the photos to prove that the increase was 81%. I don't care if you find it hard to believe or not. The numbers are easy to verify with a set of dial calipers. Next time, do so before insinuating I'm not telling the truth.

Your reference to "experts" is vague to say the least. Whose studies do you mean?

Chas.

So, Lucky Gunner is your expert source, Charles? Really, I’m sorry you’re butthurt but I wasn’t accusing you of anything, just disagreeing during a cordial conversation. OK, sunshine?

[03Lightningrocks]

So, Lucky Gunner is your expert source, Charles? Really, I’m sorry you’re butthurt but I wasn’t accusing you of anything, just disagreeing during a cordial conversation. OK, sunshine?

I feel pretty certain you are not capable of making Charles feel "butthurt". You did start out implying velocity was not important for a handgun platform. Charles was simply trying to explain to you why it absolutely is. It did seem like you shifted your argument to other things, such as muzzle velocity and such.

[Charles L. Cotton]

You’re not getting larger permanent cavities due to velocity in handguns, only rifles. You’re only advantage is penetration depth, sometimes too much penetration as experienced by PD using 357 Sig Gold Dots going through people.

A very good friend was a surgeon before his untimely death. He disagreed with your statement. Plus, you ignore damage caused by the temporary would cavity.

The testing done by LuckyGunner.com also proves that faster pistol velocities do produce larger permanent would cavities and temporary cavities. Below are photos from testing .357 SIG 125 Gr. PDX-1 (1431 FPS) and 9mm +P Gold Dot 124 Gr (1157 fps). Obviously, the photos on the LuckyGunner.com website are not to scale since when printed at 100% actual size, they measure only 9" rather than 22". Therefore, the measurements of the permanent would cavity are understated, but their relative size comparison is accurate.

The numbers below were measured with a dial caliper on photos printed from the LuckyGunner.com website. The permanent wound cavity is scaled up to account for the scaling issue.

• .357 SIG 125 gr JHP @ 1,431 fps = .642" (approx. 1.57" actual) permanent wound cavity;
  9mm Speer Gold Dot +P 124 gr. JHP @ 1157 fps = .354" (approx. .86") permanent wound cavity.

Thus, with identical bullet weight, diameter and configuration (JHP) the .357 SIG traveling 274 fps faster produced a wound cavity that was 81% larger.

There are videos of each of these rounds being tested. There are on the LuckyGunner.com website, so I couldn't post a direct link. However, links to the page where these videos can be seen are listed below by caliber. The temporary would cavity caused by the .357 SIG at 1,431 fps was significantly larger and of longer duration/depth than the slower 9mm at 1,157 fps.

While no pistol round will achieve the temporary/permanent wound cavities seen with high velocity rifles, faster bullets do many larger temporary/permanent would cavities.

Speer Gold Dot +P 124 gr. 9mm JHP video - https://www.luckygunner.com/9mm-p-124-g ... ds#geltest
Winchester PDX-1 125 gr. 357 Sig JHP video - https://www.luckygunner.com/winchester- ... on#geltest

Chas.

The increase in velocity and energy of a .357 Sig Gold Dot over a 9mm +P Gold Dot is insignificant. You’re not getting the hydrostatic shock in handguns as you will with a rifle. A hit to a non-vital area isn’t going to kill you because it’s the mighty .357 Sig. You either hit something important or you don’t. All the experts agree on this.

Why are you changing your focus Tom? The data I posted was to refute your erroneous statement that "You’re not getting larger permanent cavities due to velocity in handguns, only rifles.." Now you want to talk about muzzle energy. I never said you get the same level hydrostatic shock with a handgun as with a rifle. Indeed, I specifically stated "While no pistol round will achieve the temporary/permanent wound cavities seen with high velocity rifles, faster bullets do make larger temporary/permanent would cavities."

The increase in velocity between the 357 SIG and the Gold Dot +P is hardly "insignificant." The additional 274 fps resulted in a larger temporary cavity with longer duration, as evidenced in the video to which I linked. The permanent cavity was 81% larger! You call that insignificant? Remember, the larger the wound cavity the greater the tissue and vascular damage and the faster incapacitation will be achieved.

Of course a CNS hit is far more likely to cause instantaneous incapacitation than is any hit in another area of the body. A CNS hit is better than a lung hit, which is better than a liver hit, which is better than a kidney, hit which is better than . . . I could go on and on. What you seem to discount is the impact of blood loss and, to a far lesser degree, pain on an attacker's ability or willingness to continue his attack on the victim.

If I have to defend myself or an innocent 3rd person, I'd prefer a CNS hit to lower the chance that my/our attacker may get off a fatal shot before being incapacitated. But if I can't get a CNS hit, then I want the attacker to be incapacitated as soon as possible and blood loss is Plan B.

I'm no fan of the .357 SIG (I don't own one) and I sometimes carry a 9mm. I also don't delude myself into believing that I am as well armed as I am with one of my 45ACP, 40 S&W, .357 Mag, 41 Mag., or 44 Mag. handguns.

Chas.

Why do I bring up energy? Speed and mass defines energy and that’s what we’re talking about here. The US Army proved long ago using live animals that handgun calibers are incapable of producing the necessary temporary cavity to be an effective component of gunshot wounds, even the mighty 357 magnum.

According to Ballistics101 charts the 357 Sig GD has a 140 FPS speed advantage over the 9mm +P GD (which is not a boutique ammunition). As far as the permanent wound channel being 81% larger from such a marginal difference in speed when both calibers are the same diameter, that’s hard to believe.

Unless your using 9mm ball whizzing complete through people without dumping all its energy (there I ago again) into the target, current 9mm defensive loads are pretty effective at expanding and dumping this energy into the target. Is 9mm +P absolutely just as effective as 357 Sig, no it’s not, but it’s close enough. It sure isn’t 81% less effective.

As suggested, they’re are too many variables in bullet technology, shot placement and individual reactions to being shot to come to a definitive conclusion, and that’s why caliber wars persist.

I don’t fault anyone who wishes to take advantage of any increase in velocity or sectional density of any particular caliber. That’s why we have free will. I’m not a fanboy of any particular caliber and have owned all the service caliber handguns - they’re all fun to shoot.

I was being polite when I asked why you changed your focus. Now I'll be blunt. You changed your story because you were wrong. You stated that increased velocity in a pistol round would not cause a larger permanent wound cavity. That was false as proved by the LuckyGunner.com testing. I posted the photos to prove that the increase was 81%. I don't care if you find it hard to believe or not. The numbers are easy to verify with a set of dial calipers. Next time, do so before insinuating I'm not telling the truth.

Your reference to "experts" is vague to say the least. Whose studies do you mean?

Chas.

So, Lucky Gunner is your expert source, Charles? Really, I’m sorry you’re butthurt but I wasn’t accusing you of anything, just disagreeing during a cordial conversation. OK, sunshine?

Luckygunner produces videos of their ballistic gelatin testing that shows the temporary wound cavity. They also publish photos of the permanent wound cavity. Those photos and a dial caliper were used to show that your statement was false. Luckygunner conducts experiments and documents the results. It's up to you as to whether this constitutes an "expert." I rely upon experience and experts like . . . oh wait. You first. I'm waiting for you to list your experts that you claim form the basis of your opinions. Why haven't you identified these experts?

Chas.

[TomS]

So, Lucky Gunner is your expert source, Charles? Really, I’m sorry you’re butthurt but I wasn’t accusing you of anything, just disagreeing during a cordial conversation. OK, sunshine?

I feel pretty certain you are not capable of making Charles feel "butthurt". You did start out implying velocity was not important for a handgun platform. Charles was simply trying to explain to you why it absolutely is. It did seem like you shifted your argument to other things, such as muzzle velocity and such.

The report I’m linking to finds the 357 Sig performance slightly better than 9mm NATO In terms of incapacitation. They do however note an impressive permanant wound channel, so I will admit I was wrong on that point and offer an apology to Charles on that point of contention.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.05843

Here’s a recent video by Lucky Gunner concerning the 357 Sig.

[jason812]

Well if you want .357mag you do not have to settle for 6 rounds and a slow reload time. There is always this option:

It would have to have "Desert Eagle point five oh" on the slide for me. Too bad they cost a lot and my thumb isn'tong enough to disengage the safety without having to change grip or use my off hand. It would be fun to open carry one for a day or half a day, hahaha.

Back to the subject. I didn't watch the video but who would ever make the claim 9mm is as effective as a .357 mag?

There is always a Coonan 1911.