would you rather 240gr at 700fps or 120gr at 1400fps?

Funny talk while going out the other day. An aquaintence asked what I had in the woods. 44spl was my answer. He kinda gave me a sidelong look and stated he wouldn't carry such a weak caliber and carries a .357. I said that twice the mass at half the speed was the same KE and in many bullets the special beat the .357. His eyes starts glazing while I was talking and when I was done he started in with some old wives tales often repeated about .357's and some that just seemed like magic bullet stories. I tried to stay with simple math and shortly dropped it. Preconceived notions can be funny things.
So what is your opinion on close range keeping the end result as the same energy? do you like small and fast or big and slow?

For absolute stopping power, I will take a 44 special 250gr at 950fps over a 357 180gr at 1300fps...any day.

As to the loads that you mentioned...I have no idea...as I haven't any experience with either.

Energy is propotional to the SQUARE of the velocity, so the 2X velocity projectile has alot more energy than than the half as fast, 2xmass projectile.

However, kinetic energy isn't - in my opinion - the critical factor, particularly when talking about handgun bullets. Momentum (which is simply m*v, I find is more likely to factor into penetration depth.

The larger projectile doesn't really have to expand so much - or at all - to leave the same sized hole as an expanded smaller projectile.

This is why I own (3) 45 caliber handguns.

Momentum is probably the word I should have used.

I'd prefer a 240 @ 1400 fps.

Of course it depends upon powder used and other variables, but I normally associate big and slow vs small and fast as less noise and muzzle flash vs more noise and muzzle flash, so I'll generally vote "big and slow".

Like my diapers, Depends. Big caliber slower, smaller caliber faster. I don't know anything about 700 fps. My CB longs shoot about that out of my .22 rifle.

Diyj98 I agree and also find that I can place faster follow up shots with the bigger slower calibers.
I guess it should be noted that my most used load is 240gr LSW at 1000fps and the loads listed were just used for testing years ago when I had the same discussion with someone else.

One can say that energy is not what matters, but the comparison is question is 261 ft-lbf vs 522 ft-lbf.

I mostly shoot 44 Specials, but in this case there is NO comparison. 120 gr at 1400 is on an entirely different level. I agree with your friend.

Taylor KO for the two loads you question:

44 Special 10.32
357 Mag. 8.568

My pick (always) is the Special.

Dan

I like middle of the road or standard for caliber bullets. The exception is in pistol caliber rifles where I sometimes prefer the heavy bullets.

I did a little comparison for myself using the Federal website. http://www.federalpremium.com/default.aspx

44 special 200gr @ 870fps = 305 ft lbs of energy at 50 yards.

357 mag 158gr @ 1240fps = 450 ft lbs of energy at 50 yards. (357mag wins the energy debate here)

I'd rather go with the 240gr at 700fps. Even my .44spec Bulldog(in my pocket right now) can do a bit better than that. I think Taylor's KO ratings are more suitable to handguns. Energy doesn't kill things, holes thru vitals does.

240 gr. at about 950 ft./sec. is just about perfect...

Jimbo if we are going to use bullets in the 150s then we need to use 300gr at half speed for comparison.
a BB at high enough speed will have greater energy than both but how effective would it be?

What about the .44 Special at 950 fps for whitetail deer?? Bullet would be 240-255 gr hard cast.

Our unscientific test about 20yrs ago was to take a bunch of boards and boxes of catalogs up to the range with a .357 loaded with full power 125's and 158's and a Blackhawk convertible .45 with 250gr and 300gr LSW (cowboy loads). The penetration came out about the same and I shoot the big bores with less flash and bang much better. Pigs fall just as fast to either one.
I have since went to .44 just to clear the loading bench more. I dont think one is better than the other, its just a prefference.

On paper, energy figures can look very impressive. A great many people believe that this energy is transferred to the target causing massive damage. The problem is that the vast majority of energy transferred to the target (over 90%) is transferred as heat. This raises the temperature of the surrounding tissue by an insignificant amount. It causes little if any damage.

The .44 Special 240/250 grain bullet at 950 feet per second would be my choice over the lighter, faster bullet.

charlesappel said:

On paper, energy figures can look very impressive. A great many people believe that this energy is transferred to the target causing massive damage. The problem is that the vast majority of energy transferred to the target (over 90%) is transferred as heat. This raises the temperature of the surrounding tissue by an insignificant amount. It causes little if any damage.

The .44 Special 240/250 grain bullet at 950 feet per second would be my choice over the lighter, faster bullet.

Click to expand...

Rifle hunters know that small bullets going fast can bring down game effectively. That is one reason the smaller caliber rifles, if you want to call 30 caliber small, replaced the 45/70. It is energy that does it, not knock-down power.

When you go to 240gr bullets in the 44 special you should compare the 357 magnum with 180gr bullets to be fair. Terminal performance would depend a lot on what you are looking to kill, hogs, deer or people.

charlesappel said:

On paper, energy figures can look very impressive. A great many people believe that this energy is transferred to the target causing massive damage. The problem is that the vast majority of energy transferred to the target (over 90%) is transferred as heat. This raises the temperature of the surrounding tissue by an insignificant amount. It causes little if any damage.

Click to expand...

BINGO!!!

Terminal performance would depend a lot on what you are looking to kill, hogs, deer or people.

Click to expand...

As well as the composition and characteristics of the bullets involved.