Which is more powerful .357 Magnum or .45ACP?

If you put the shot where you wanted it to go the fight is over. You won. If a second shot is required, a .45 ACP is probably a faster, easier second shot than a short barrel .357.
Which gun will you like to shoot and practice with. Get that one.
 
Comparing apples to apples, I would pick a 45 ACP revolver over a 357 Mag revolver for city or woods use.

And when I had that choice back in revolver days I chose a 25-2 for my duty gun instead of a 357 Mag.

I carried the Mod 25 in 45 ACP for several years.
 
Boys, I would say to use the gun you shoot the most. Your muscle memory will take over in a crisis situation. The gun you practice with the most (.357 or .45), IMHO, is the gun one should carry. When I say practice, I am not just talking about poking holes in paper. I talking running and gunning in all sorts of situations. Simulation work. Then go with the one that your muscles will remember.

regards

Bill
 
I think either one would be a top choice, that being said, the .357 Magnum in a revolver has a lot more versatility that an auto loading 45 ACP, that fact and the better "power" numbers on paper makes me lean towards the .357 Magnum, preferably with a 140-145 grain bullet, I like the Winchester Silver tips but thats just me. For woods use, you can step it up to 180gr projectiles.


I guess I should add that when I go camping or fishing, I don't carry either. My go to gun for the last 6 years has been a Glock 23 in 40 S&W. The .357 Mag has a lot of energy and also a lot of muzzle blast which I could not see dealing with in an enclosed space.
 
Last edited:
I also prefer the .45 ACP revolver over the .357 Magnum. There's no question that the bigger bullet cuts the bigger hole, especially if large bones are struck. I have always felt that the .45 ACP lacks velocity but this problem is easily solved by shooting .45 Super out of the modern 625 revolver. I can easily exceed 900 FPS with both cast and jacketed 250 gr. bullets in my 3" barrel. This easily duplicates the ballistics of the old black powder .45 Colt, which had an excellent reputation even with the less efficient pointed bullets. I have six and eight shot .357 revolvers that see no concealed carry use because I believe the 625 is the better choice.

If on the other hand I had to choose between ANY .45 ACP semiautomatic pistol or a .357 revolver, I'd choose the .357 every time. Revolver is priority one, large caliber bullet is priority two.

Dave Sinko
 
357 Magnum and 45 ACP are considered to be two of the best of the heavy hitters for self defense. Using good bullets I don't think you will be able to get enought data to really say which is better.
 
For field use with the S&W 45 ACP check out Buffalo Bores 45 Auto Rim loads, or if you prefer to use moon clips in the field their 45 ACP loads.

If you want to laod your won take a look at the older Speer loading manuals, the No6, No7 or No8.

They show loads fired in a S&W Mod 25 with a 240 gr cast SWC at 1192fps.
 
Comparing apples to apples, I would pick a 45 ACP revolver over a 357 Mag revolver for city or woods use.

And when I had that choice back in revolver days I chose a 25-2 for my duty gun instead of a 357 Mag.

I carried the Mod 25 in 45 ACP for several years.


And I preferred tha .357 over the .45...but that is personal preference...right up until today
 
Shiny, intimidating, nickel 2 1/2" model 19, and lots of noise to boot. Even if you miss. My vote goes to the .357
 
This is an excellent read on the subject as I imagine it's been posted here before. Discussing various rounds on they perform once they enter the body. The author states flat out that he loves .45acp and .357 magnum as the best all around body droppers.

http://www.commonfolkusingcommonsense.com/files/terminal_ballistics_as_viewed_in_a_morgue.pdf


C77

As much as common folk using common sense is a good thing, I would caution everyone from drawing too many conclusions from that pdf. First of all, it was very poorly written, it was just hodge-podge of repetitive information. I'm not a medical examiner nor a cop, so I don't have that kind of experience to pull from, but the problem with talking to someone like a medical examiner about bullet performance is that his sample is pretty skewed--he only sees the dead guys. He lacks any sort of balanced overview of victims of gunshot wounds. Also, the callous attitude on display by someone in the "medical" profession is pretty atrocious, too, which makes me question his objectivity. He reminds me of all the medical examiners who despise motorcycles because they are such death machines, all the while missing the fact that millions of people ride motorcycles without getting killed on them and he just never sees those examples.

So whatever. Hollowpoints or hardball, or whatever. There's nothing scientific there, it's all anectdotal. Interesting, but not really that useful.
 
As much as common folk using common sense is a good thing, I would caution everyone from drawing too many conclusions from that pdf. First of all, it was very poorly written, it was just hodge-podge of repetitive information. I'm not a medical examiner nor a cop, so I don't have that kind of experience to pull from, but the problem with talking to someone like a medical examiner about bullet performance is that his sample is pretty skewed--he only sees the dead guys. He lacks any sort of balanced overview of victims of gunshot wounds. Also, the callous attitude on display by someone in the "medical" profession is pretty atrocious, too, which makes me question his objectivity. He reminds me of all the medical examiners who despise motorcycles because they are such death machines, all the while missing the fact that millions of people ride motorcycles without getting killed on them and he just never sees those examples.

So whatever. Hollowpoints or hardball, or whatever. There's nothing scientific there, it's all anectdotal. Interesting, but not really that useful.


I disagree, ballistics gelatin only shows one side of the equation- depth and expansion. However it doesn't factor in that it takes solid mass to break bones- which is what he is pointing out. JHP's form nice little stars in gelatin, which is a selling feature because we've been told that is a feature that causes someone to bleed quickly. However it can also take a while for someone to bleed out, which is why he is stating that breaking bones; hits to the femur, hips, spine will stop a fight much faster than a gut shot that fragmented but failed to break the spine. Anyway, I wouldn't feel undergunned with either a magnum revolver or an auto in either caliber.
 
Does it take mass to break bones? If so, how much? Will a 158 grain 357 do it?

I doubt it is as much mass as it is sectional density and enough energy. A .45 acp 230 grain bullet has a sectional density of .162, while the 357 has a 146 grain bullet has a sectional density of .163. The 158 grain 38+P or 357 has a sectional density of .177. So if it hits the bone with equal velocity, in a bullet constructed of equal hardness, I'd bet a 158 grain .357 would break the bone better than a .45. Even the Buffalo Bore 38+P in 158 grain bullet would hit with near the ft-lbs of energy and have greater sectional density.

Want penetration, and bone breaking ability? Try the Buffalo Bore 180 grain hard cast bullet (SD .202) moving at 1375 ft/sec from a 4" barrel (about 750 ft-lbs of energy). Of course, odds are it would pass thru a person without expanding, slowing down much or caring about bones.
 
What is that saying; People like to talk .45, shoot 9, and carry .38?

The .357 magnum has more "power". I don't think that is in question. As far as which one would be better for carry depends on a lot of factors. I tend to prefer smaller and lighter calibers only because they can be found in platforms that I can shoot and/or carry more easily. For example, I can carry my Glock 26 or SP101 .357 easier than one of my 5" 1911s. Even so, exact same platform, say a 9mm 1911 vs. a .45 1911 or a Model 27 vs. a Model 25 .45 ACP, I would take the .45 every time.

Everything is a compromise. Those loads quoted in the original post sound like they would be a handful in a self defense scenario. Also, bullets are only designed for a certain velocity threshold. If you push them faster than designed, then you just get a lot of recoil and blast, they won't perform any better. The human body is only so deep. Even if you do have some super bullet that expands fully and perfectly on impact and penetrates the entire body, at some point it will exit and whatever energy is expended after that to keep the bullet moving cost you something in terms of recoil and shot recovery and got you nothing in return.

Having said all this, if you are looking for the maximum in a handgun, I think a full house 10mm is the one to beat. If you are going for extremes, why settle for light and fast or slow and heavy when you can have fast and heavy? In the right platform, like a Glock 20, it is very easy to shoot. The G20 is also fairly light, has great capacity, and is reliable and relatively inexpensive. Check it out.
 
Both are good choices however if you have to fire it without hearing protection, especially in an enclosed space or in a car use the 45.
 
I'd say it all comes down to personal prefrence on what you carry and what ammo you carry in the gun. I'd feel just fine with any reasonable JHP in any caliber starting at 9mm on up- more power can have it's downsides with more recoil muzzle blast etc too. at some point the caliber and power level of the ammo becomes irrelevant and the key to the whole business will come down to shot placement.
Some people like to carry autos,some wheel guns. I'll carry either one (have about 15 of each) and don't feel ill equipped regardless.
 
Carry both and shoot the BG with both at the same time---be sure to carry a recorder so that you can ask him which hurt the most---well, er---before he dies.
The .45 is going to thump him harder and exert more shock.
Blessings
 
One problem with the article by the medical examiner is that it doesn't tell how quickly the bad guys were actually stopped. The objective is to stop an attack, and it may not do you any good if the bad guy expires an hour later. The medical examiner is assuming that a round is good because he has a dead guy with said round in his body laying on the table, but that doesn't actually tell anyone what happened on the "street" when the bad guy was shot. Even with all the data in the world on a given shooting, you can only draw general conclusions because no two shootings are exactly alike (unless you are shooting blocks of jell-o in a lab, and even then there will be very minor variations as no two bullets are exactly alike).
That being said, either .357 or .45 should do a fine job if you put it where it will do some good (as will several other calibers, provided that they can reach something vital). Strictly between the two, I like .45 for indoors, and either is fine for outdoors.
 
Last edited:
Its shot placement. Plain and simple. And you have to be comfortable with what you shoot. And shoot it a lot. And shoot it again. Run 50 yards and fast bullseye. Run 100 yards and fast bullseye. Do 30 pushups and bullseye.
.45 acp is awesome if you can hit with it. .357 mag 125gr hollow point is just as bad.
How can you shoot determines.
 
Both are tools....

Sometimes you need 8 rounds of 45:

2f811c91.jpg




And sometimes you need eight rounds of 357:

e7a36a5d.jpg
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Back
Top