For whatever reasons, I have fallen in love with the S&W L-Frame Performance Center 7-shot revolvers.

I have the PC 986, which is in 9 mm. My carry cartridge is +P. The barrel length is only 2.5 inches.

I am tempted to purchase an identical revolver in 357 Magnum. Yes, only 2.5 inches barrel length.

I am wondering if the 357 Magnum would be much better for personal defense and private security duty. Of course, the cartridge has far more power, etc. This is not a caliber comparison.

The quandary is that we all have said, as did the FBI recently, that the 9 mm is optimum. Great magazine capacity, low cost, reasonable ballistics, etc. I am not so sure. It is, without question, the typical cartridge chosen by LEOs and security forces worldwide. Yes, it is well-regarded and the newer cartridges are sufficient in stopping power.

Given the possibility of effectively deploying a 357 Magnum, does it make sense to train with the 9 mm variant and carry the 357 Magnum? Of course, I would qualify with the 357 Magnum, and work through a few training programs with it. But, for the 400-round courses that I choose for my personal training, the 9 mm would be far better. Ammo cost, recoil of 400 rounds, etc. would be much lower.

What say you?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 4MUL8R,

The one thing I’ll discuss out of everything I could say concerning the 357 Magnum cartridge as compared with the 9mm Luger relates back to what was reported in law enforcement-related sources, probably in the late 1970s. At that time law enforcement agencies were beginning to more commonly accept that firearms training should be realistic to the degree that any training can be realistic as compared with real life.

It was reported that many agencies issued full power 357 S&W Magnum loads for their officers’ revolvers, but used low-powered 38 S&W Special target ammunition (e.g., 148 grain wadcutters) for training and qualifications. The power level difference between the two loads was very significant, and therefore the differences in recoil and muzzle blast were very significant as well. It was found that when agencies started having their officers qualify with the 357 Mag loads, scores plummeted because of the difficulty of controlling guns with the more powerful loads and the aversion most shooters had to firing them.

I clearly remember myself the first time I fired a 357 cartridge from the 2.5 inch barrel model 66 S&W revolver I had just purchased in the 1970s. I wasn’t especially recoil sensitive because I also had a revolver in 44 Magnum, but the muzzle blast effect on a bush just off the line of fire was … impressive—as was the noise.

Muzzle blast and recoil are two major effects that affect how fast and accurately shooters can engage targets. That should be obvious to anyone familiar with shooting guns, but it may take actual live fire experience to drive it home. That’s reportedly what the FBI discovered when it adopted handguns chambered for the 10mm Auto cartridge and they originally issued full-power loads. Their response to poor qualification scores was to go to lower power 40 S&W-level ammunition, and then to 9mm.

My point of all this is that if we ever needed to engage a target fast and accurately, we shouldn’t be subjected to a major handicap by having ammunition that we can’t shoot fast and accurately. There is a big difference in the power of (genuine) 357 Magnum ammunition, and even hot 9mm loads. That doesn’t mean you couldn’t make good use of a 2.5" 357 revolver, but if shooting the full powered stuff, expect a lot of difference between it and a similar revolver in 9mm.

And to wrap up, about the time Smith & Wesson and then others came out with small, really lightweight revolvers chambered for 357 Magnum, shooters quickly found that full power loads were really unpleasant to shoot. I ran a couple of cylinders through my model 340PD, and that was enough; it’s loaded with +P 38 Special rounds the times I carry it now. In any case, manufacturers started offering loads marked “357 Magnum,” but not loaded to nearly the power of the old ammunition. I don’t have any personal experience with such loads, but it’s something to be aware of. If you try some and think, “Well, that wasn’t so bad,” check the ballistic data of the load before drawing conclusions about shooting the real stuff.

It’s a choice. Or more likely a self justification to buy something else. In that case, absolutely 9mm sucks and wouldn’t hurt a fly.

In reality, the bigger issue that I see in this thread is the 2.5 inch barrel. I love the 2.5 inch 19/66. Don't get me wrong. But, going below a 3 inch barrel really can make your extraction/ejection spotty due to the lack of a full length ejector rod. If I were seriously buying the gun as a carry piece I would go with a 3 inch round butt of some sort.

As to the caliber, if I carried a 2.5/3 inch pistol it would be chambered in .357 and probably carried with a good .38 load. Unless I knew that during the commute I might have to down a giraffe or something. Then I might consider some good old fashioned 158 grain magnum load. But, for the two legged predator, a heavier .38 round with decent ballistics and a speed strip in the pocket would do me.

As to training, pulling the trigger is pulling the trigger. But, .38 ammo is reasonable and that is what I shoot most of the time. The Winchester 130 grain range stuff works great in my 66. If you really want to train and shoot a lot, a shorter barreled variant in .22 works too.

I do love me some K frame goodness and enjoy shooting them.

Remington had a 125 grain load in .357 called the R357M11. It was a midrange load developed for the SP101 Ruger. It went out the gate at about 1250 fps vs the fire breathing 1400-1450 of the full house loads. In a 4” K frame, it was respectable and very controllable. The Current Golden Sabre mimics it and has a decent price point. I shoot it out of my 3” Lispey GP100.

quote:

Originally posted by Citadel:
Remington had a 125 grain load in .357 called the R357M11.

Thanks for a couple of examples of the watered-down loads developed after the small, light revolvers showed up. A 125 grain bullet at 1250 fps is only slightly more powerful than some +P 9mm loads, albeit from significantly larger guns.

For 357 a Model 327 N Frame would be my pick, yeah it's a bit larger but scandium frame, titanium cylinder and barrel shroud and 8 rounds.

They used to make on in 44 Magnum and I missed that boat, it's no longer on the list...

A decent BUG with a J Frame is the 351 C, 22 Magnum 7 rounds.. Lots of flash bang and a pretty fast moving cartridge. If you are close enough, 22 Mag is a pretty decent round, or at least better than a butter knife....

quote:

Originally posted by 4MUL8R:

The quandary is that we all have said, as did the FBI recently, that the 9 mm is optimum.

The FBI also said that just before the Miami shootout. That led to playing with the 10mm. The .40 S&W. Led to the 357 SIG.

Back to the 9mm.


The FBI chose the 9mm as a reasonably effective round. That was cheap. That they could train thousands of people to shoot reasonably well. From former military special forces, to 5’3 125 pound young ladies that just graduated with an accounting degree. Set up criteria that they wanted a bullet to do. Ammo makers obliged. It became the de facto “best”.

There is a lot of “just as good” in their justification as opposed to “better”.

When you say “security work” is that carrying concealed? You are greatly handicapping yourself in just about any caliber with a 2.5” barrel.

Back when I used to own and carry .357 snubs, I really liked the Rem 125 gr Golden Sabre. It was a middle ground loading with less flash and blast than the 125 gr SJHP of the day. I think it did like 1220 fps out of a full sized barrel instead of 1450. That what I carried in my 640 J and 686 2.5”. It was a well regarded defense load and it looks like they still sell it.

https://www.remington.com/hand...efense/29-27600.html

quote:

Originally posted by Sgt 127: You are greatly handicapping yourself in just about any caliber with a 2.5” barrel.

The first thing I did after reading the OP was bring up the site Ballistics By The Inch to see what the actual velocity differences are between the listed calibers from a 2.5" pistol. There is no 2.5" data, but plenty of 2" and 3" data from which to extrapolate some worthwhile comparisons. You'll need to look at the bullet weight differences and do a little math to determine the actual energy of each load across all calibers and bullet weights.

After spit-balling some of the data from the charts and applying personal experience, a .357 mag from a 2.5" pistol has more disadvantages than advantages to me, and confirms why I don't own any short-barreled pistols chambered in this caliber. The slightly better ballistic advantages aren't significant enough for me to put up with the real-world issues of recoil, blast, and accuracy. Sigfreund's first post above does a great job of covering this.

But the question you really asked is about the viability of training with 9mm but carrying a .357 on duty. Having spent a career in a different community where "You fight like you train" has been proven over and over, I don't swap calibers between the range and carrying in the real world. If the recoil and blast from a short-barreled .357 are unpleasant enough to affect accuracy at the range, it won't get any better when the threat is real and you don't have ear plugs or muffs on. (And no, I am not advocating to train without ear protection, just pointing out that it is another factor to consider for real world situations.)

For me, it is the time proven .357 125gr. JHP.

Thanks for the ballistic review! If there is no reason to shoot 357 Magnum then I am all set with what I have.

Fight like I train is the way to go!

I'll just standardize on 9mm and qualify with revolver + 9mm with the DCJS.

It’s obvious, but we all know self defense starts so much sooner than the cartridge in question. I just think, it’s such a larger factor than the round, or gun.

Of course, a gun forum, ballistics are fine. If needing a refresher, rewatch ‘High Plains Drifter’.

quote:

For me, it is the time proven .357 125gr. JHP.

Even then, that covers a fairly wide range of power levels, from just a little more than .38 Special+P, to thunderclap roar, concussive muzzle blast and mule kick Remington R357M1.

To be more specific:
Speer Gold Dot 125gr 357 which clocks at 1450 FPS from a 4 inch test barrel.
For anything with a shorter barrel and frame lighter than my GP100, its .38+P 125gr. Or the old Federal .38+P LSWCHP.

I’d go 3” 357. Hot or medium magnums or 38 and no moon clips.

The new Nightguard 386 looks pretty nice and I'm waiting for sufficient self justification get get one...

Winchester 110 grain .357 semi jacketed hollow points are no joke. Good expansion out of a 3 inch barrel and manageable recoil. I like them in my 3 inch 65.

I own too many .357 Magnums. There is a magic spot, right at my first thumb joint, that gets absolutely whacked. Like a ball peen hammer. I’m good for one or two cylinders full of magnums, and I tap out.

I just hosed off 50 rounds of 357 SIG out of my P250, and barely know I’ve been shooting. The shape of an autos backstrap and that slide eating up some of the recoil makes a world of difference for me. Same with My P239 DAK.

I love revolvers. The autos win for me now.

Thanks for continuing the dialog.

The private security duty is undercover. So, short barrel works well, as does the very slim revolver grip. Much more comfortable and less potential printing under a suit or sport coat.

Certainly, one would practice with the cartridge carried. However, the 400-round four-hour courses I take would be both super expensive in 357 Magnum and brutal. I suppose the Hogue Tamer X-frame grip used on the 460 and 500 magnums would be the grip to use there. I would also have to purchase a plastic holster to meet range requirements for safe reholstering.