357 SIG vs. 40SW


PDA






FlyPenFly
March 12, 2008, 07:40 PM
This is a range gun and possibly home defense if it ever comes to that.

This is in reference to HK P2000 and P226 or P229 in either caliber.

I've been reading up a lot on it and I can't see why I wouldn't want to go with a 357SIG over 40SW:


On Ammoman, Ammo cost is only a $20 difference between full power 357SIG loads and practice 40SW per 1000 rounds.
357 SIG has a design that enhances reliable feeding relative to other pistol rounds
357 SIG is reportedly a lot more "fun" to shoot, bigger bang
357 SIG doesn't produce any excessive wear on the frame according to Sig and actually has less total energy battering the frame than a heavy 40SW round.
When I shoot 40SW, it's all WWB that is not my self defense round, the total energy from 40SW in WWB is actually less than common 9mm loads.
When I shot 357 SIG at the range, it will be the same ammo I will be using to defend myself if the need ever arises.
357 SIG is marginally more accurate than the 40SW
357 SIG is a more flexible round that can overcome barriers
While shot placement is of course king, 357 SIG can potentially do more damage and in standard or equivalent HP bullets, 357SIG will do more damage.
There is some appeal to using 357 SIG in a SIG gun


I am not concerned at all about over penetration of 357 SIG. One possible minus is, I can't just run to Walmart to pickup cheap 357 SIG ammo, I'd have to keep a lot in stock at home from online vendors.

Please correct me if any of my points above are incorrect.

If you enjoyed reading about "357 SIG vs. 40SW" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Rayden
March 13, 2008, 02:06 AM
I am studying the viability of each to see which round I want to be in my future CCW. I know your bullet points are just opinions, but where did you find the source to form those opinions?

antsi
March 13, 2008, 02:14 AM
It's what I carry most of the time, but I can't claim it is objectively better than any of the other common defensive calibers. The reason that I carry it is because I got a good deal on a gun I really like, and it happened to be chambered in 357 SIG.

Honestly, I don't think there is enough difference between 9mm, 357 SIG, 40 SW, or .45 ACP that would make the difference between your surviving a lethal encounter or not surviving it. To me, the differences are marginal.

If you like the gun and shoot it well, get it.

If you are looking for objectively verifiable reasons to get 357 SIG vs any of the others, I don't think you are going to find any.

ccd
March 13, 2008, 02:38 AM
357 SIG ammo will NORMALLY be more expensive then 40S&W. I am sure the 357SIG ammo @ammoman is not as of recent manufacture as the 40S&W that they have in stock and that this accounts for the price difference.

You should like the 357 SIG as there is nothing wrong with it. It is a little bit of a pain to reload for versus a straight cased cartridge, but it isn't reason enough to choose another cartridge. There is very little separating the various cartridges you mention as long as the are using the same modern jacketed HP's (or Federal's Expanding FMJ?).

FlyPenFly
March 13, 2008, 03:18 AM
I actually already have a P226 in 40SW and I'm getting a 357 Barrel for it.

I'm pondering whether to pick up a P2000 in 357 Sig to complement my P226 or get a P2000 in 9mm to complement my 9mm CZ P-01.

I am thinking about selling my P226 and getting a P229 in 357SIG though as I heard that different barrels exert different forces on the slide/frame so what you're left with when you switch barrels is an even weaker frame/slide than you would normally have. I'm not sure about the accuracy of this presumption but it does seem to have some logic behind it.

greyeyezz
March 13, 2008, 04:07 AM
I heard that different barrels exert different forces on the slide/frame so what you're left with when you switch barrels is an even weaker frame/slide than you would normally have. I'm not sure about the accuracy of this presumption but it does seem to have some logic behind it.

Do you have a source for this information? Thanks.

FlyPenFly
March 13, 2008, 04:14 AM
Sorry, just from reading countless threads on Sig Forums.

Cowboy2
March 13, 2008, 09:55 AM
I'd take it with a grain of salt. Sigs are pretty sturdy guns. The slide/frame wearing out would be my last concern. If you can afford the amount of ammo that you'd have to shoot to do it, then the cost of a new gun isn't going to be a concern.

greyeyezz
March 13, 2008, 11:07 AM
There's no way swapping barrels can weaken a slide or frame on a Sig. Even if the barrel is woefully out of tolerance the worst that can happen is it won't function properly. The barrel fits in a steel locking block in the frame.

SDDL-UP
March 13, 2008, 11:33 AM
I don't know what the question is. Sounds like you want a 357 Sig - so go get one.




Do you gain anything using 357 Sig over 40 S&W? Not really. There may be a marginal improvement in barrier penetration (if you ever need it) but the 40 S&W will have a marginal advantage against soft targets because of it's larger diameter (which you are almost assured to need). The 357 Sig will also recoil a little softer than the 40 S&W (in my experience), so there is a very small advantage there, but I really think if you can handle one then you can handle both. Perhaps it's only a phsycological advantage.

For myself, I have 9mm, 40 S&W, 45 ACP, and 357 Magnum, so I have the bases covered. If I want 9mm I've got 9mm, +P, and +P+, if I want faster or heavier I have 357 Magnum, If I want just heavier I've got 40 & 45. I find the 38 Super more intriguing because you don't give up capacity like you do with the bottlenecked Sig.

Now if you want the 357 Sig, go get the 357 Sig!!!

If you enjoyed reading about "357 SIG vs. 40SW" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!