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

General Firearms Terminal Ballistic Information
1

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?

2

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?

3

yes.

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

4

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.

5

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?

6

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.

7

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

8

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

9

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.

10

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 :slight_smile:

11

You have to remember that ballistic gel is less elastic than actual tissue(especially living), and it is more brittle. So, bullets that are less aerodynamic make more of a “wake” in their flight path which causes cavitation and TSC effects. The gel cracks around the PWC and the dye gets into those cracks and produces what you see. This is why dye is NOT used in the FBI test protocols…because it is a very inaccurate method of looking at TSC. It takes a massive amount of kinetic energy and wake to cause a TSC in living tissue of the magnitude seen in the photo above…on an energy level between 1000ft-lbs to 2000ft-lbs depending on the projectile shape.

There are some .357magnum loads like the 180gr Winchester Partitian Gold which is an expensive bullet design that opens up slightly larger than typical 9mm or other .357 caliber loads…but it still does not beat out the .40S&W. Unless you are using something that can give you the kinetic energy level I mentioned above, you can only rely on permanent wound cavity for a handgun. In that regard, the 9mm and .357 calibers are so close in effectiveness that a difference between them cannot be determined against human targets. If you want to improve your terminal effects, you must increase the size of the hole made by increasing your bullet diameter by using .40S&W/10mm or larger.

12

Your’e right on about the gel cracks. The TSC effects of gel and tissue are not similar.

Yes, there has been a considerable amount of research by Fackler and the IWBA in regards to smooth versus sharp edges. Sharp JHPs and sharp WC and SWCs catch the tissue better and pull/tear it in the flight path. When it comes to nose profiles, a sharp or rounded point requires a very high velocity in order to crush the same amount of tissue that a flat point can achieve at a lower velocity. Usually a velocity well in excess of the particular caliber’s capabilities. So, flatter frontal areas with sharper edges are the superior wounders.

Personally, I would like to see a better model for TSC. Gel just doesn’t have the same properties to elastic tissue. Most testers who are looking for a TSC that causes some kind of incapacitation effects will look at pictures like the one above and assume that a .357sig is making a very effective TSC when it wouldn’t even be observable in a person who has actually been shot. That’s why we must rely on those who work with the wounded and with cadavers to study the effects of TSC like Dr. Fackler. Dr. Fackler said in one of his journals that his obervations of the .357mag and the 9mm were that the .357magnum caused better wounding than the 9mm because of the more effective bullet designs of the .357mag like the SWC and the more reliable JHPs. He didn’t notice any observable TSC effects that would cause incapacitation with handguns, nor did any of his surgeon peers. It’s all about the bullet profile, and the 9mm needs to be loaded with quality JHPs to be as effective as the .357mag. If quality JHPs are used, then it most certainly is.

13

Just to add, if you feel more comfortable using higher velocity loads…more power to you. If you can manage the negative effects of increased muzzle flash, muzzle blast, and recoil then you’ll be okay provided that your load of choice meets FBI testing protocols. Also, be sure to take into account how terminal effects are influenced by bullet profile and sharp edges. Personally, I tend to prefer heavier bullet weights. When you take in the big picture, the differences between all the handgun calibers and loads are quite small in comparison to the improved effects you get from using a rifle or shotgun.

14

Wow! EXCELLENT information Marcus, thank you very much :slight_smile:

I live in Asunción, Paraguay. Most countries in south america have laws that forbid the use of JHP ammo by civilians.

If restricted to non-expanding ammunition, what are the choices to improve terminal performance for defensive use?

Going to a larger caliber seems like the obvious choice, but possible drawbacks would be you don’t like the available plattforms or their magazine capacity.

You have mentioned in the other thread that FMJ FP is somewhat superior to rounded ogives, specially pointed ones like the ones used in 9 mm. Does increasing the velocity or bullet weight does any good? Faster bullets penetrate metal sheet better, but normal 9 mm FMJ has plenty of penetration (even excessive) in human tissue, and energy does not kill. Going to a heavier bullet? momentum does not seem to kill either… only advantage may be an increased capacity to break bones.

In many countries around here civilians are restricted to 380 and 38 spl, higher power calibers and larger bores are not allowed.

The 380 ACP seems to be about a marginal “manstopper”, but what about revolvers? the 38 spl can be easily hot rodded to +P or even +P+ specs in modern steel frame revolvers.

In 38 spl, with solid bullets, is there anything to gain with higher velocity and/or bullet weight, above the normal (pretty anemic) load of 158 gr @ 750-800 fps out of a 4" barrel? If you handload, the choice of bullet profiles is larger for revolvers, you could use a FP with a large metplat, a full wadcutter, a LSWC, different alloys, etc. in many weights.

Finally, you said very wisely: “When you take in the big picture, the differences between all the handgun calibers and loads are quite small in comparison to the improved effects you get from using a rifle or shotgun.” Perhaps I worry too much about all this and would be better spending my time training…

15

TiroFijo,

It’s a shame that SA countries have such a poor selection. It’s important to use a heavier bullet weight with JHPs in order to have enough momentum to push the expanded projectile through the body. Once a bullet expands, its reduction in velocity is exponential and the only thing to keep it going is more bullet mass. This is why the 125gr .357sig expands to the same diameter and penetrates to approximately the same depths as the 9mm 124gr bullet…because they have almost the same mass and sectional density. Velocity is of little importance in this matter.

Yes, lighter bullets at higher velocities penetrate steel better. However, heavier bullets penetrate wood, windshields, a sofa, or housing material better. I guess your choice of bullet weights depends on your environment. For me, heavier bullets are a more logical choice.

If you are limited to non expanding bullets, then try to find a load with a semi wadcutter bullet or flat point. Obviously increasing caliber size is more effective…and using a semi wadcutter with that caliber increase is even better.

The .38spl is going to be more effective overall than the .380acp. There is little difference between the .38spl and the 9mm if you use .38spl+P loads in a 4" barrel. There are a lot of good .38spl JHP loads out there such as Speer Gold Dots…but be sure to use 125gr bullets or heavier. If you are limited to non expanding bullets, try to find a good SWC. Full wadcutters are more effective, but they are harder to load into the cylinder under stress even with speed loaders. SWC have a slight taper which makes them easier to load. As for the .380acp, the only good load for it is FMJ…preferably with a flat point. There isn’t a single JHP for the .380acp that doesn’t suffer from poor penetration problems except for the Hornady 90gr XTP and even that isn’t very reliable. The key with the .380acp is to make sure it is reliable.

16

The answer to the particular question is NO, if the mushroom size and penetration depth of the bullet remain the same for both.

Temporary expansion of tissue may bruise a little :), but it has no real effect on stopping power to speak of in handgun ammo.

It’s hard to imagine a bullet that would remain exactly the same as far as profile and penetration depth goes when the speed of the bullet is several hundred feet per second faster. But IF THEY REMAINED THE SAME - stopping power or whatever we want to call it would remain the same for all practical purposes.

To my way of thinking, however, an ammo/gun combination that fired a bullet several hundred fps faster as with a full house .357 vs. a regular 9mm - would require a different bullet altogether to keep the same depth of penetration and proper mushroom ability. Under those requirments - we are talking apples and oranges and not apples and apples.

17

Thanks again for the great information, Marcus.

You have given me good advise on the selection of solid bullets.

Please allow me to insist in this question: In a 38 spl revolver, with solid bullets, for defense, is there anything to gain with higher velocity and/or bullet weight, above the typical (pretty anemic) load of 158 gr @ 770 fps out of a 4" barrel?

If there is an advantge in going to a higher energy/momentum load, what is recomended, up to 900-1000 fps, or is there a certain threshold that must be reached?

18

There’s usually a balance of velocity that you want to achieve depending on what bullet mass you are using. Against tissue, as long as you can maintain a velocity of around 500fps with a high mass bullet you’ll be fine. However, shooting against barriers is another matter. If your velocity is too slow, regardless of your bullet’s mass, your projectile will have trouble penetrating hard barriers. It seems that for most auto pistol calibers with a good bullet design(mass, sectional density, and profile) that 900-1000fps is the magic veloctiy range.

If you are doing your own reloading on the .38spl, you can load the standard pressure .38spl with 158gr bullets between 850-900fps from a 4" barrel. The .38spl really excells with heavy bullet weights. If you can maintain a velocity of around 800fps for the 158gr bullet, I would go with that. You can also try using +P brass if you want to load it a little hotter. I haven’t done any loading for the .38spl in a while, but this site has some good reloading data:

http://www.handloads.org/loaddata/default.asp?

The only problem with the site is that it doesn’t always list their tests barrels. So, it might be a good idea to chrono your own loads to see how fast you loast are.

19

Something I posted on another forum very recently when the issue of “energy” came up:

It is very important to understand how terminology is used in terminal ballistics research. “Wound” is a term of art and specifically refers to causing physical damage that is identifiable after the fact. So in typical handgun cartridges, only the permanent cavity wounds.

That’s not the same as saying “kinetic energy has no effect” or “temporary cavity has no effect.” The reality is that, short of testing on live human beings, science currently lacks a reliable, repeatable method of judging the effect of those things on incapacitation (which is another term of art).

We know what causes wounding with handgun projectiles: penetration and expansion resulting in a permanent wound channel. Tremendous scientific evidence exists on this matter and currently it is the only proven, testable measure of handgun terminal performance. That does not mean it is the only thing that causes incapacitation, but beyond pen/exp & permanent wound channel you get into theories and guesswork and anecdotal evidence instead of hard demonstrable scientific proof.

My personal approach has always been to hedge my bets by using a round with proven pen/exp performance as determined by Dr. Gary Roberts (aka DocGKR), one of the world’s top subject matter experts in the area of terminal ballistics, while still having a relatively high velocity/KE because, vooodoo or not, I believe in it. :cool:

20

Marcus – The problems there are (1) what works best on a charging rhino may not be what works best on a human being, and (2) what works best to kill wild game may not be what works best to incapacitate an attacking human.

It’s also a truism of the IWBA point-of-view that rifle terminal performance and handgun terminal performance are substantially different in the manner of causing wounds and incapacitation, thus further limiting the value of big game hunting data as it would pertain to stopping lethal human threats.