.357 Sig In A Revolver?


PDA






SWAddict
January 30, 2010, 06:29 PM
Hello. Does anyone know if anyone has tried to make a revolver chambered for .357 Sig?

If no one has, it seems to me that it would not be too difficult to do. You use a cylinder from a S&W 610 that hasn't had the chambers cut and have them cut for the .357 Sig and then fit the cylinder to an N-Frame .357 Mag/.38SPL S&W. I think this would be really great as you could still use the exact same moonclips as for a .40S&W or 10mm. Also, reloading would be very fast and easy since the .357Sig is a necked down cartridge it would very easily feed into the chambers of the cylinder. What do you think?

If you enjoyed reading about ".357 Sig In A Revolver?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
41magsnub
January 30, 2010, 06:36 PM
I guess I'm not seeing the market to do this. The 357sig, as I understand it, is designed to duplicate the classic .357 125gr HP load in an autoloader. Making a gun this way I think would be a limitation rather than any sort of benefit. I don't see why it would not be possible, I just don't see a purpose.

m2steven
January 30, 2010, 06:39 PM
I can see it being a good revolver, but having shot my Glock 32 quite a bit, I see no reason for me to want a revolver chambered in 357 sig. That being said, if someone made it I'd probably want it because it's a great round.

MikePGS
January 30, 2010, 06:44 PM
To do so would be using elaborate means to chamber a cartridge in a revolver that is based on a superior revolver cartridge. Why not just get moon clips for a .357 magnum?

Claude Clay
January 30, 2010, 06:45 PM
bottle neck cartridges do not generally work well in revolvers. unless the shoulder is very shallow, like a 32-20 or a 44-40.
the shoulder pushes back on the breech face and may lock up the cylinder.
besides, a 40 being wider than a 38 would make for a wider cylender. put another way:
a 6 hole 357 could only be drilled for 5 40's.

ahpd1992
January 30, 2010, 06:59 PM
I too have thought of this concept, but then I think WHY?

I am a big fan of 357sig, its my duty weapon and I have converted several of my officers to the church of high velocity.

I guess I just dont see any advantage other than if you really could only have one caliber to shoot. There may be slightly higher velocity out of short barreled revolvers w/ 357sig v 357mag, but I doubt it would be enough to justify the development of the gun

With all of the above being said, if they made it, I probably would buy it ;-)

MCgunner
January 30, 2010, 07:10 PM
The Sig round is pathetic compared to the magnum round. Out of a 4" gun, I can push 165 grain cast bullets over 1400 fps. A 6.5" gun and I can push a 180 grain bullet over 1400 fps. I see no reason to own the Sig, personally. I'd rather have a .40, but I could shoot .40 in moon clips in a Smith 610 and also the 10mm, which is equivalent ballistically to the .357 Magnum, but shoots a bigger, heavier bullet.

Anyway, I'll keep my magnums. I don't buy the Sig's advertising hype. I know the truth. :D

Fishman777
January 30, 2010, 07:10 PM
I suppose someone with some autoloaders in .357 sig might like it, but I can't see anyone else really going for this. The great thing about .357 magnum is you can also shoot .38 special.

mnhntr
January 30, 2010, 07:15 PM
look at the other necked cartridge revolvers out there and realize it was not to be. Very few functioned well, due to the cartridge backing out of the cylinder, locking up the gun. This was a problem that Taurus seemed to fix with the raging hornet and bee, however alot of the others that tried failed to combat this problem. The 357Sig was designed to function better than straight walled auto cartridges and it does its job. The 357 magnum is the way to go in a wheel gun.

MCgunner
January 30, 2010, 07:16 PM
Well, it wouldn't be hard to load the sig down to .38 special levels in a revolver that didn't require a change of main spring. A few grains of bullseye behind a 124 grain .355 bullet would probably do a pretty good .38 special imitation.

Yeah, the bottle neck thing would likely be the killer.

unspellable
January 30, 2010, 07:50 PM
While I agree that a revolver chambered in 357 SIG is a solution looking for a problem, I have to disagree about bottle necked cartridges not working in revolvers. It's sort of an urban myth. The only one that had a real setback problem was the 22 Jet. And that one was the result of the factories taking a wild cat commercial and fixing what wasn't broke. It was inspired by the 22 Harvey K-Chuck which was based on the 22 Hornet case and had no set back problem. S&W and Remington based the 22 jet on the 357 Magnum case and put the weird long sloping shoulder on it which led to the setback problem. (It's my suspicion that it might have been because of the 357 Magnum case having thicker brass and being trickier to neck down, but who knows?)

?I've had four revolvers chambered in three different bottle necked cartridges and I've never had a setback problem with any of them. I still have two of them, one in 17 HMR and one in 357-44 B&D. The latter is a 44 Magnum case necked down to 357 and is a real snorter.

Bottle necked rifle cartridges are common place in tip barrel rifles where you have the potential of set back tying up the action. If it's a big game rifle, reliability is EVERYTHING!

The Lone Haranguer
January 30, 2010, 08:39 PM
In a large frame revolver the high operating pressure and forcing cone erosion should not be a problem, but I think "setback" of the bottlenecked cartridge would prove to be an insurmountable obstacle.

Hardballing
January 30, 2010, 08:41 PM
The earlier post about "solution looking for a problem" seems to most fit.

The .357 Sig was designed to duplicate the EXCELLENT reputation on the street of the 125 grain JHP .357 mag, but in an autoloader.

The .357 mag though has MANY other loadings that can push much heavier projectiles than the Sig.

So...other than the novelty (and nothing wrong with having a pistola just for the novelty imo, God knows I have more than a few) the question again is...why?

SharpsDressedMan
January 30, 2010, 09:16 PM
Claud Clay has it right. Bottleneck cartridges set back and bind. I tried a .218 Bee Taurus, thinking they may have fixed that problem, but it was just as bad as my friends .22 Jet S&W from yesteryear. Stick with the straight walled .357 Mag.

MikePGS
January 30, 2010, 09:41 PM
I forgot to point out earlier that when you get to heavier grain bullets the 357 SIG's equivalence to the .357 mag starts to diminish rapidly.

unspellable
January 30, 2010, 09:58 PM
I'd like to see how the 218 Bee acts. My 357-44 has never offered the slightest hint of set back. It will easily outperform the 357 Magnum. It has a reputation for not setting back.

The 22 Harvey K-Chuck had a reputation for not setting back.

My 17 HMR has never offered to set back and that has a flimsy case.

unspellable
January 30, 2010, 10:05 PM
BTW: In the just for the h**l of it category, I have a Ruger P89 chambered for the 7.65 mm Parabellum (30 Luger).

DWFan
January 30, 2010, 11:07 PM
Ya'll do things the hard way. Simply rechamber a Ruger GP-100 for the .357 SIG and use the full-moon clips from Dave Clements for his 10mm GP-100 conversion. If accuracy is a bit off, make a set of steel sleeves to make up for the shorter case and press them in place. You don't want set-back? Move the shoulder back about .005" when you reload and don't try extreme pressure recipes. The shoulder on the .357 SIG is only 18 degrees. When you reload, use .357" bullets instead of the .355".
If you are set on a S&W, an M27 (original or a new "Classic") is a better starting point than an M610. Rechamber the cylinder and mill for the M610 clips.....or use .30-30 brass to make a .357 SIG Rim and avoid the clips altogether for either the S&W or Ruger.
The problem is that you're going to lose power compared to a .357 Magnum. The .357 SIG needs the closed breech to even come close to LEO .357 Magnum velocities, and can't compare to the "heavy" Magnum loads like those of Buffalo Bore and Double Tap.
The way around that is to use 10mm Mag or cut down 6.8 SPC brass (or the .30-30 if you don't want to mess with clips) to make an actual magnum length cartridge.

fireman
January 31, 2010, 02:48 PM
I guess I'm not seeing the market to do this. The 357sig, as I understand it, is designed to duplicate the classic .357 125gr HP load in an autoloader. Making a gun this way I think would be a limitation rather than any sort of benefit. I don't see why it would not be possible, I just don't see a purpose.

+1
Not to mention the set back problem that would be not unlike the 256 Win Mag Hawkeye revolver. Likely that set back would lock up the cylinder.

Fireman

cz85cmbt
January 31, 2010, 03:24 PM
There's barely a market for the .357 sig to begin with let alone a revolver where the .357 magnum is already chambered for. The point of the sig as already mentioned was to duplicate the .357's 125 "man stopper" police load. The only function it would serve would be in a j-frame as a backup gun to your full size, but there again, how many people own a .357 sig and need a backup j-frame.

waidmann
February 4, 2010, 09:56 PM
Must agree, this is a solution in search for all the accompanying problems. Athough I own/carry a Glock 31C. Speaking of marketing, this gun is a 9mm express (magnum ?) not a .357. Many of my fellows argue that 9x19 +P+ is too close to .357 SIG anyway.

Shadan7
February 5, 2010, 07:29 PM
You know, I *really* like the .357 Sig round for auto-feeders. The ballistics (http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/357sig.html) are quite impressive.

But for a revolver? Good lord, why??? Just get a .357 Magnum, and have a heck of a lot more flexibility.

Jim D.

If you enjoyed reading about ".357 Sig In A Revolver?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!