45 vs 357

in a smith and wesson revolver, comparing the short barrel 340 and the defender, which has more "stopping power"? the 45 acp or the 357? thanks.

Neither has more. Both have more. They are about equally matched. Which one FEELS right to you? Feel is everything.

They are both probably up to the task but the 45 might leave your hearing more intact if fired in a close area.

A representative comparison of the additional energy one generally gets with the .357Mag over the .45ACP would be illustrated by the Federal Premium example below:

Federal Premium 165 Grain Hydrashok in .45 Muzzle Energy = 412 Ft. Lbs.

Federal Premium 160 Grain Hydrashok in .357 Magnum Energy = 539 Ft. Lbs.

If you hit the right spot, either will do just fine.

One old geezer told me many years ago that if a 45ACP round just grazes a hair on your pinky finger, you'll fall down dead. Frankly, I don't want to get hit with either.

This is the classic more modern high velocity low weight (158 grain) vs low velocity high weight (230 grain) argument. I prefer either. I've killed deer with a 357 magnum. I'm not sure I try the same with 45ACP. Although I do love that cartridge.

I'm not sure what you are referring to when you specify the "defender". Assuming that we're talking about comparing 2 firearms with similar 2"-3" bbls., I'd lean towards the .45 ACP. Generally speaking, I prefer the .357 Magnum over the .45 ACP...however, the .357 is more dependent on velocity for its power than is the .45 ACP. Therefore, I'd suspect the .45 would lose less effectiveness than the .357 in a very short bbl'ed weapon.

dwever said:

A representative comparison of the additional energy one generally gets with the .357Mag over the .45ACP would be illustrated by the Federal Premium example below:

Federal Premium 165 Grain Hydrashok in .45 Muzzle Energy = 412 Ft. Lbs.

Federal Premium 160 Grain Hydrashok in .357 Magnum Energy = 539 Ft. Lbs.

Click to expand...

This is why I would usually prefer the .357. However, I suspect these figures are derived from longer bbl'ed "service" sized firearms, which allow both cartridges to achieve something closer to optimum efficiency. As I stated above, I imagine the numbers would tilt more towards the .45 ACP if we had figures derived from shorter bbl'ed firearms.

As was mentioned by Kframe66, either one is capable of doing the job, given proper shot placement. As also touched on by Joni_Lynn, one would likely experience less flash, blast, noise, and likely less recoil in a short bbl'ed .45, which may also allow for faster follow-up shots, should they be necessary.


Tim

squidsix said:

Neither has more. Both have more. They are about equally matched. Which one FEELS right to you? Feel is everything.

Click to expand...

No, "feel" is a subjective quality that has nothing to do with the real-world performance of how one cartridge performs against another.

The 125 gr HP .357 was the number one cartridge for one stop rounds, but I'm sure if that is true now. That said, the .357 is a high pressure round with a lot of muzzle blast and recoil, especially in a light weight frame. When all is said and done, I doubt that either has that much of an edge in real life.
If you intend to hunt, the choice is pretty simple----.357M. Factor in SD and I would lean more to the .45 ACP. I solved that problem long ago, I went with a (sorry S&W) Glock 22 (.40).

Warren Sear said:

No, "feel" is a subjective quality that has nothing to do with the real-world performance of how one cartridge performs against another.

Click to expand...

If you're comparing raw statistics, you would be correct. But if the muzzel blast and recoil of one causes a person to not be able to hit the broad side of a barn then feel (not feelings) has a lot to do with it. And yes, it is quite subjective. After all, we're real feeling people not computers or ransom rests.

Warren Sear said:

No, "feel" is a subjective quality that has nothing to do with the real-world performance of how one cartridge performs against another.

Click to expand...

I beg to differ:
If one is basing their purchase of a firearm based on performance of a cartridge, and these are the two rounds to be compared, one would be a fool to get one that feels "wrong" because of some assumed difference in performance.
We're not having a ".32 ACP Vs. .45 ACP" conversation. For defensive handguns, these two rounds perform so similarly in real world shootings that the choice of firearm becomes far more important than the choice of .357 Vs .45.

As was said above I would take a few more things into account.
The 340 comes with a 24/7 Tritium Front Sight. Big Plus for a serious carry gun. It is a 5 shot J frame air weight. Good track record for a carry gun. It is lite enough for pocket carry. It can also be belt carried. You can practice with 38 Special low velocity ammo which will be more pleasant to shoot. It should hold up to around 1500 rounds of 357 ammo before a trip back to S&W to have the top strap blast shield replaced. That is a pretty large quantity of 357 to fire in a J Frame. My guess would be that 38's would not do much if any erosion at all to the shield.
On the negative side is the Ti cylinder. It helps to loose some weight at the cost of needing some special care in cleaning. Not a big concern if you do not shoot it much. Another issue is noise. a 2" 357 is very loud. The 357 snub is also not very pleasant to shoot with 357 mag ammo.

Now a Defender is a good belt carry rig. Recoil is not terrible. Noise is also not terrible. Much heavier than a J Frame air weight, but not that big a deal on the belt. Capacity 7 Plus 1. Good sights on newer ones. I would get some Wilson Combat magazines, and leave the factory Colts in the box. That is what I have done with my last 2 Colt 1911's.

The revolver needs the cylinder length added to the barrel length as part of the comparison. When this is done the barrel lengths are not all that different. The Defender is a 3", and the 340 total barrel + Cylinder length would be a little longer, but with the cylinder gap to blead off a little speed about equal.

I would call it a wash power wise.

While both would need to be shot some to get comfortable with a smaller platform gun, the Defender should be much easier to master with carry ammo.

Myself I could live with either with no issues. I would be shooting low velocity 38's in the 340 about 99% of the time for practice so it should hold up well enough.
With the Defender you would not have the option of pocket carry. It would have the advantage of being more shootable with full power ammo. It would also have an advantage during a CC reload. I would be belt carrying a couple spare magazines for it. With the 340 I would more than likely be carrying a spare speed strip or two.

As was said above the real questiuon is what platform are you most comfortable with.

Bob

Tyrod said:

One old geezer told me many years ago that if a 45ACP round just grazes a hair on your pinky finger, you'll fall down dead. Frankly, I don't want to get hit with either.

This is the classic more modern high velocity low weight (158 grain) vs low velocity high weight (230 grain) argument. I prefer either. I've killed deer with a 357 magnum. I'm not sure I try I've killed deer wit I've killed deer with a 357h a 357 the same with 45ACP. Although I do love that cartridge.

Click to expand...

and i have killed them w/.45 acp.
neither is a recommended deer cartridge, but we both know they sure can do the job when shot placement and range limits are utilized.

This is a subject which you could replace with anything. How about this "___vs.____, which is better?". The problem is, what do you rely upon for theory, evidence and proof? There's always one camp or another. "Old Geezers", My grandad that fought in WWI and WWII, Elmer Keith, Massad Ayoob, etc, etc, etc. The list could just go on and on, which is why posts like this go on and on.

I was an Infantryman for twenty five years, and for the first few years, I thought that the Army must really expect to take a lot of casualties since the small arms we used were considered to be so weak, inefficient and underpowered by the standards of "self-defense experts". Even the ballisticians, with their impressive array of tests on "human like" mediums would contradict the "experts". When I became proficient with weapons like the 25mm cannon, I figured I had cancelled out all of that discussion, but then I realized something; I was proficient, it wasn't so much a question of the weapon system but that I knew how to use it.

After years of training with a variety of weapons and techniques, I finally found the answer that had been in front of me all the time, and the one that the true experts always state at the very beginning: proficiency. Caliber and cartridge (two different things, by the way) are not nearly as important as training and use. A well trained and practiced individual proficient with even a .22lr is more lethal than an indivudual with a more powerful weapon that is not proficient with that weapon. Even the SEALS and SF maintain that caliber in their arsenal. The question should not be .45 vs. .357 (which one is assuming we mean the cartridges, .45 ACP and .357 Magnum...that's basically "apples and oranges"), but trained vs. untrained, and then take your pick of cartridge and a weapon to fire it, then we can talk about specifics. Think of it in terms of automobiles; which is fastest? If you have the money and a license, you can buy the fastest, but do you have the capability to drive it to it's potential? Same with handgun cartridges of almost all centerfire design. Some are more powerful than others, but can you really operate them to that potential? Not unless you are trained to do so, which you must be in order to employ it effectively. In the case of these two cartridges, pick one, practice with it, and that will be the best one, but it is determined by your capability, not the cartridge.

I know a lot won't like that answer as it may seem to simple, but I believe it's accurate. And although it may seem simple, it's much more difficult process than choosing a caliber or cartridge in regards to a weapon. It's an answer that relies much more on the operator than the weapon, but then, since the days of defending oneself with sticks and stones, it's always been that way.

I guess to me this discussion is about self-defense because in my mind hunting is a totally different story because in self-defense I'd rather have 9 rounds of 45 ACP in my 1911 then 6 rounds of 357 magnum in a revolver. Actually I'd probably rather have 14 rounds in my Sig P226 in 40 S&W. Why because it's a fight for survival and I believe more rounds are better in a high stress situation.

For hunting I would want my 8 3/8 inch barreled Model 27-2 to get the maximum velocity and work hard to get my shot in the kill zone as immediate follow up shots aren't usually available and tracking a wounded animal is not a lot of fun.

hbschwartz said:

in a smith and wesson revolver, comparing the short barrel 340 and the defender, which has more "stopping power"? the 45 acp or the 357? thanks.

Click to expand...

Here's a good link to a thread in another forum. The link has a discusion of how handgun bullets stop fights. IMO it's well worth reading.

Basic Wound Ballistic Terminal Performance Facts - M4Carbine.net Forums

Very short summary: All handgun rounds are marginal in their ability to put an adult human out of a fight. Handgun rds depend on good bullet placement and sufficient penetration to hit the vitals. The two physiological mechanisms that can reliably take someone out of a fight are a penetrating hit in the central nervous system (brain stem or upper spinal cord) or sufficient loss of blood to cause unconsciousness(even a heart hit can take 15-20 seconds to end the fight).

In revolvers, pick a caliber among .38 Special +P, .357 Magnum, .44 Special, .45 ACP, .45 Colt, etc, etc, then pick a load in that caliber that has sufficient penetration (the FBI says at least 12" in bare ballistic gelatin) and reliable expansion in same media. The expansion helps with the tissue crushing that leads to rapid blood loss, which leads to incapacitation.

Then train hard and realistically to be able to make multiple good hits rapidly in the high center chest and ocular window on a moving target, while moving and under stress, with two hands, strong hand only, and weak hand only, under limited visibility. IMO this is much more important than caliber choice.

Having said all that, given those two choices, I'd take the 340, load it with CorBon 110 gr DPX +P .38 or Speer's .38 +P 135 gr Short Barrel Gold Dot, and carry it in a DeSantis Superfly pocket holster as a weakside backup to my Glock 19.

My pocket carry gun is the M&P340 loaded with Hornady Critical Defense 125 gr (backing up a Glock 27). This is a genuine 'shock and awe' load, even when fired from a very shot barrel! Wouldn't trade it for any other gun/cartridge combination on the planet.....

thanks for all the replies. i think i will stick with 135 grain short barrel ammo in my 340 m&p.

I think the .357 mag. or .38 special 135 gr JHP Gold Dot short barrel ammo is an excellent choice.

The shooting mentor who had the greatest influence on me was a WWII retired Army Ranger who had worked with Applegate to develop marksmanship training programs for the Rangers during WWII. He was an expert pistol shot on the target range as well as with combat style shooting as taught by Applegate. He later fought in France and Germany with the Rangers in 1944, and according to the men who served with him, he used the 1911 model .45 effectively for its intended purpose many times during combat.

I asked him the same question in the late 1950's. ( At the time I was still too young and inexperienced to appreciate fully that most veteran combat soldiers don't really want to talk about killing enemy soldiers.)

His answer was, "When a man gets shot in the chest at close range with a .45 ball slug (230 gr. FMJ), he generally ceases to be a problem to you. But when I had time, I preferred to give him two or three just to be sure. I've fired several hundred rounds from a .357 Magnum. It's a good round. (He was referring to the 158 gr lead SWC factory rounds which were most commonly available at that time.) I expect it would work about the same in combat as a .45. It would probably be effective at a greater range. But it's got more recoil and muzzle blast, holds fewer rounds, it's slower to reload, and it doesn't point as naturally (he was referring to .357 large frame revolvers with a 6" barrel) for me as the Govt. Model Colt .45 does. So I think I will stick with the .45. And that's the last time I'm going to talk about that topic."

I think he was probably right. You can use various arguments and measurement (like ft lb of energy) or FBI gelatin tests to try to prove that one is better than the other. You need to compare specific loads, not calibers. It would be more meaningful to ask questions like, "Which is more effective? A 125 gr semi jacketed HP fired from a 4" barrel .357 Mag revolver at about 1400 fps, or a 200 gr JHP "flying ashtray" fired from a 5" barrel in a 1911 model semi auto at about 960 fps?

But the end result will likely be that a solid torso hit from either one will usually stop the threat, but two or more is generally recommended to be sure. That makes them pretty much functionally equivalent in my book.

Arguments over stopping power and tic-tac-toe have one thing in common - there is no winner.

That said, a .357 Magnum, or even .38 SPL has nasty recoil in a lightweight revolver like a 642. Your hand is going to sting after only a few rounds. A small automatic, like a Kahr PM45 weighing 17 oz dripping wet, shooting +P ammo, has surprisingly light recoil. I put 20 rounds of 230 grain +P and 200 rounds of 230 grain hardball through mine last week, and was ready for more. It wasn't all +P, but good enough for most purposes without breaking the bank.

You're not going to hit anything consistently unless you practice, and you won't practice enough if it's painful.