[john l]

OK here is my basic worthless gripe:
The 357 Sig generally has factory loadings mostly in the ballpark of 1350 fps, and a few loads that push to barely over 1400 fps.
Well, Corbon 115 gr loads for 9mm go to 1350 fps, and so do the Rem +P+'s. I know, the 357 load is for 124 grainers, but I say that is nearly not worth mentioning.

Now, Everything a 357 sig can do, a 40 can do better, & with 40 bullet weights that go up to (Factory) 180 grains, then what do the 357 Sig defenders out there have to say?

I'm not insulting anyone who chooses 357 Sig, just explain "why" it is attractive to you.
Now, if your reason is as basic as, " I just thought it was cool", then that is legit to me.
thanks,
john l

[ny32182]

The .357sig has an EXCELLENT street record with LE so far. Take that as you will.

I tend to agree with you though as far as that goes... the thing about the 9mm+p+ is that it is going to tear up a 9mm gun faster than .357sig will a gun that was designed for it from the start, but the advantages of 9mm are higher capacity with preban mags... .357 recoils less than .40, and produces more muzzle energy than .40. very flat trajectory. Inherently more accurate and better feeding reliability than straight walled cartridges. Noticeably louder than 9 or .40, or .45. Also, the cartridge is at the beginning of its development curve, if you will. I tend to think it will eventually lend itself well to very hot subgun applications.

In the end, it seems to me like "just another choice" in the current SD market: no better or worse than any of the other premium loadings available right now.

Over at sigforum, there have been MANY dozen+ page debates on this exact topic. Head over there and dig some of them up, and you will literally have hundreds of pages of input, some of it expert input from the likes of David DeFabio, etc. That should provide all the current info you could need.

[mrapathy2000]

357sig can do everything 9mm can though can do it staying in standard design pressure. +p+ 9mm not being safe in all pistols and exceeding standards.

I have seen some info 357sig will get to 1500fps though my thoughts are it will over penetrate like crazy. I have yet to see any heavy grain loads for 357sig its a relatively new round. its nicer to have in bear country than 9mm even though the bullet is the same size. 357sig is in sub compact pistols and recoil seems to be bit better than 40S&W though thats not true exactly.

I myself like 40S&W its fairly versatile. from 9mm recoil like federal hydra shock 40S&W 135gr to 180 gr or the screaming corbon 135gr doing 1300fps or 155gr silvertip or remington express doing 1200fps. I wish 40S&W was revamped with thicker casing and barrel support and higher pressure. both are punishing rounds to pistols and probably wont last as long as 9mm pistols with standard loads.

I think 357sig's advantage is penetration. shooting through car windows and other objects.

357sig is to 9mm as 10mm is to 40S&W.

if you ever read clark magnuson postings on the net he has done some pretty hot loads in various guns and calibers. real insane loads. try looking for some of his postings. he mentioned he could push 9mm loads further than 357sig. sounds like 357sig cannot be pushed much to super hot loads.

dont know if you have read pete 357 website it has some good info on 357sig.


if 357sig ammo was cheaper and more loads were availible it might be worth me getting into it. will stick to 9mm and 40S&W till then. pete-357 (http://www.HandGunInfo.com/Archive/www.Pete-357.com/)

myself I am kinda pissed of ammo manufactures for not working on 40S&W bit more. practice ammo in 135 gr doing 1100-1150fps ends up fealing like 9mm recoil wise though leaves nice .40 hole curious to how much accuracy might improve as 40S&W is not known for being accurate though 10mm is.

its possible to get similar muzzle energy out of 357sig and 40S&W it depends on the load.

[10-Ring]

I only have a subjective reason...I just enjoy shooting the 357sig...bigger bang, brighter flash, seemingly better accuracy & more fun to shoot than the 40 S&W.

[Nightcrawler]

*Yawn*

I liked it better when it was .38 Super. :neener:

[clubsoda22]

what good is it? More then the .45 Glock :rolleyes:

[coylh]

Hi john l.

I can't think of a pistol cartridge I like more than .357 SIG. The benefits for me when compared to .40 S&W:

* I like the bottleneck. All else being equal, a small bullet going into a big chamber is a better feeding design.

* The other guns I shoot are .380, .38 Special, 9x19, and .357 Magnum, so I'm perfectly happy in using 115 and 125 grain bullets. I tend to choose lighter weight loadings anyway, so I would not carry a 180 grain .40 S&W regarless of its availability.


There are other general benefits too:

* I'm happy with the power vs. recoil balance. It produces the right amount of energy for me at about 500 foot-pounds. And, I don't need to shoot over-pressure cartridges in my gun to obtain this power.

* It's a nicely sized cartridge. I can put 12 rounds into a grip that's not too fat, not too long, and get a comfortable hold on it.

The only down side to .357 SIG that I have seen is that it's slightly more expensive than similar cartridges. For example, one web site lists a case of .40 S&W at $170. The same kind of ammo case for .357 SIG is $190. This is inconsequential for me, given the number of rounds I shoot and the other advantages of the cartridge.

I'm not on a quest to find the perfect cartridge, just a satifsactory one. And right now I can't think of one I like more. Now, if .400 Corbon were to go mainstream, I might have to reconsider. :)

[PCRCCW]

Just a couple of notes........as far as guns lasting longer in 357 Sig or hotter 9mm's ..NOPE. Since the caliber is newer, data is just starting to come back. Glock, Sig etc....are all publishing data saying the Sig kills guns faster than the 40 or 9mm does.

Any time you bottleneck a round you increase the pressure. This may account for the unforseen wear and tear on the guns.

IMO, Ill stick with 9mm or 40...I see no difference in a 135 gr round screaming at over 1300 FPS while having more mass/frontal area over both the 9mm diameter bullets.........ok nice theory....

I carry a 9mm......Corbon 115's................Shoot well.

[Graystar]

The idea behind the 357SIG's existence is to provide the same ballistics that you get from a standard .357 Mag revolver in an auto package.

The reason for doing this is to provide police with a gun that has street-proven ballistics, but with greater capacity than a .357 Mag revolver.

Cops have different requirements from their guns that the typical Joe. Cops may need to shoot someone that is far away. They may need to shoot through glass. They may even need to shoot through a car door. The 357SIG can do all that because it is a very accurate round that is small and has lots of power to penetrate.

While a .40 has lots of power, it doesn't have the same penetration. It can't...it's plain ol' bigger! Personally, I found 357SIG more accurate than .40.

So for police work, I think they got a winner. However, for CCW I think a .40 is better, and .45 best.

That being said, I did buy my girlfriend a 357SIG for CCW, because it would also be the gun she uses when camping. If she needed to shoot a bear, you want a round with the greatest penetration. That has the best chance of getting the bear's attention and hopefully make him think you're not worth the effort.

[XLMiguel]

For the guys who want .400 Corbon or a higher pressure .40 S&W, it's been done, I believe it's called the 10 mm;)

Personally, in my limited experience, I like the .357 SIG vs. the .40 - very good performance balance, very reliable feeding, and seems to be more accurate than the .40.

[Beav]

I agree with 10-ring, I just enjoy shooting it more. My only gripe is its cost.

[Beav]

Just a couple of notes........as far as guns lasting longer in 357 Sig or hotter 9mm's ..NOPE. Since the caliber is newer, data is just starting to come back. Glock, Sig etc....are all publishing data saying the Sig kills guns faster than the 40 or 9mm does.


What 9mm and 40S&W ammo, specifically, are they comparing the 357sig to?
I don't think its fair to compare +P+ rounds when it comes to performance and then use lower pressure rounds when it comes to wear and tear.

[Yo]

From a reloader's standpoint the answer would be "no good at all."

But, one could also ask the question, what good is .40sw, again from the perspective of one who reloads and shoots for sport, not to kill.

The 9mm is cheap, reliable, and won't break even older C&R guns. You can buy 1000 reloads at a gunshow for $90, and once-fired brass is so cheap I don't even bother picking up empties at the range anymore.

.45acp bests .40sw for accuracy. My $670 SW1911 groups well under 1.5" at 25 yards. The only .40 I've seen come close to that was a $1100 Sig 229 Sport, and then only with a few loads. The .45 case is easy to load, functions well at low pressures, and you'll lose the brass before it wears out.

Look at most fired .40 brass, it's badly bulged where it's not supported, and you have very little latitude for error if you run your load a little hot.

I used to have 3 40sw guns. Now I have one. I use the 9mm for high volume gun games. Use the .45 acp where accuracy counts, such as falling plates.

I suppose the .40sw may have some edge in killing power over a hot 9mm, but as someone else said, there's a better cartridge for that--the 10mm. Personally for defense, I use a revolver or a 12gauge.

If I had to shoot a .40sw as an issued gun, pretty much the only gun I'd use is a Sig 229. I had an HK40c. Too much muzzle flip. Oh and the slide cracked with factory ammo.

[Peter M. Eick]

The 357 sig is good because it came in the 229 sport. At the time I wanted the sport because it felt really good in the hand. The 229 sport was only available in 357 sig, ergo got a sig.

What the 40 short and weak (I see no purpose in the round by the way, just get a 10mm if you want .400 power) cannot do is drive an 88 grn bullet at 1640 fps. I can do that with my 357 sig and it does not even break a sweat. Nearly zero recoil and exceptionally accurate. The muzzle blast is amazing and fun.

The real question is what good is the 40 short and weak given the 357 sig and the 10mm?

[ny32182]

The real question is what good is the 40 short and weak given the 357 sig and the 10mm?


Well... the .357sig is:

-more expensive than 9mm or .40
-harder to find than 9mm or .40
-recoils more than 9mm.
-has less capacity than 9mm
-is much louder than either
-produces more flash than either.

the .40 is:

-more common and less expensive than .357
-makes bigger holes while using the same capacity mags as .357
-is more powerful than 9mm
-has less noise/concussion/blast/flash than .357
-fits into normal size guns, when the 10mm doesn't. I'm not going to be carrying around a mega-size G20 or S&W auto all day.

The 9mm is:

-The cheapest and easiest to find
-Plenty viable as a self defense round.
-15+ round mags are tough to beat.

.357 seems just fine for a range gun (flat trajectory, very accurate, etc), but the SD drawbacks are very real. Even if money is no object for practice ammo, MORE blast and flash is not something I'm going to be looking for if I ever have to fire the gun with no hearing protection, possibly in the middle of the night.

[ny32182]

What the 40 short and weak (I see no purpose in the round by the way, just get a 10mm if you want .400 power) cannot do is drive an 88 grn bullet at 1640 fps.


Again, not trying to be picky here, but even if you WANTED to drive an 88 grn load at 1600+ fps (why?) there are in fact factory ~90gr .40 loads (fragile ammo I suppose) driven to those speeds.

[45+]

Texas DPS carries the 357 Sig and they have tried all sorts over the years. I think the logic is something like the 357 Magnum (which I hear they liked) in a semi-auto. Fast reloads and great ballistics for highway le use. Some of us like other calibers better, but I would not turn down a 357 Sig "loaner" during a gun fight if mine stopped working.

[Teufelhunden]

I don't own one, so I can't claim to be a true fan, but doesn't 10mm really trump just about any argument made between which caliber is best for defense? It's a wide bullet, it can be loaded very hot or very tame, and it's inherently safer than the .40 (two of which I own). I suppose the only realy drawbacks are price, which would come down if 10mm were popular, and the grip size...


Maybe it's time to get a 10mm... ;)

-Teuf

[Peter M. Eick]

As a reloader I am only interested in ammo I can reload. Yes there are frangable light 40 short and weak rounds, but they are expensive. 88 grn rem JHP bullets are cheap. Why do I like them, accurate, light recoil and lots of fun at the range to just blast with. Why do I like the 1640 fps screamers as I call them? When I double tap them it just echos on the range and with the 229 sport, I bring dust down from the rafters with the comp. It actually causes the gun to recoil down.

Again, reading over your 40/9mm comments, since I reload it is basically a wash to me. I can make 357sig ammo for about what it costs to make 9mm ammo. The only difference is the extra powder. Yes the 40 fits in a smaller frame gun, but that is what I have the 357sig for. If I want power I go for the 10mm and 800x for power.

So again, the question is (to those of us who reload) what good is the 40 when you have a 357 sig and 10mm? (sorry for the missed reloading comment)

[ny32182]

If I reloaded, I'd be taking a harder look at .357sig and 10mm for range use, as the cost factor wouldn't come into play so much, and the 10mm especially is such a versatile cartridge. But for a carry gun, all the points I stated are just as valid. Especially for those who don't reload, the 9 and .40 just seem to make the most sense.

I'd be perfectly happy to own guns in any of the calibers/reload, and probably will someday, but for now, I want the most practical SD guns possible. my .02.

[Parker Dean]

Originally posted by Teufelhunden
Maybe it's time to get a 10mm...


You mean you DON'T have one yet?!



Heathen :D

[NevadaPistolero]

The 357sig is a better round than the .40 or 9mm...there is no comparison. 357sig has a higher kill ratio......9mm the smallest. You cant even compare a 9mm to the 357sig round, there in different ball parks all together. 357sig is not more expensive, is not hard to find or any of that. I buy 115 gr CorBon for $11.99 per box ....thats the same a hydra shocks and the others. The 357sig will do alot more than a .40 cal anyday. All the info you need to back it up can be found on the net. Before I bought mine I did a lot of reading on the subject......357sig outperforms them all. Like said above it was partly designed to be the 357 mag of auto pistols and it has proven its worth. More and more police and government agencies are going to the 357sig...theres a reason for this...it out performs the .40 and beats the hell out of the weak 9mm. If you only read one balistics chart instead of many your not getting the right info ........prejudiced reviews and out right liars will say anything required of them when there bought off by certain ammo companies or gun makers. Shoot a metal target with a .40 cal, then shoot it with a 357sig.....NO COMPARISON. The 357sig will destroy the target...the .40 if your lucky might dent it. Now you can flame me all you want but facts are facts.

[jc2]

The 357sig is a better round than the .40 or 9mm...there is no comparison.
Not exactly true--matter of fact, a long, long way from truth. I could post a list of penetration and expansion figures for the 9x19 and 357 SIG, and you couldn't pick out which was which--because they are, for all practical purposes, identical. In LE shootings, they are running neck and neck as well (even in--or particularly in--the standard velocity RA9T). They penetrate and expand the same, and they perform for LE the same. Performance is a wash.

The 357 SIG will give you more muzzle blast and muzzle flip (big, big negatives). The 9x19 will give you faster splits (big plus). The 357 SIG is harder on the shooter and the weapon than the 9x19 (if you think a Glock 31 will outlast a Glock 17, you're deluding yourself). The 9x19 will has a higher capacity (10% or better in the sub or personal size weapons). It is far easier to find find 9x19 ammunition (both practice and premium), and it is less expensive when you do find it.

So, in performance, it's a wash--they are two peas in pod. In other areas (capacity, "shootability," durability, ammo availability/cost), it is clearly advantage 9x19).

[NevadaPistolero]

Then what your saying is that all the LE tests are bogus......why would they go to the 357sig if they were equal????? Like I said its very easy to put to rest...shoot a metal target with the 40cal and the 9mm...then shoot it with the 357sig.....which does more damage??? There finding out they have more one shot kills with the 357sig(real people not gelatin). And from the balistic test in gelatin Ive read the 357sig out performs them both. There are plenty of leos who have shot the BG multple times with a 9mm and the guy is still a threat...that doesnt happen with the 357sig round. Explain that one to me. And again..why are they all choosing the 357sig over 9mm a.40cal????? Stupidity???? They did their own testing and got super results with the 357sig round. Theres a reason.....test prove its a better round. Also a more reliable loading round because of the tappered casing. 9mm is fast losing ground in the US.....it is a weak round, I like to call it a euro trash bullet. Most people today shoot 9mm for target shooting because its so cheap, some for self defense because they can get a lighter weapon thats easier to conceal, I wear a XD 357sig daily for my CCW gun and I have no problem concealing it. Theres no way you can honestly compare a 9mm to a 357sig...its impossible and your fooling yourself. I hope you would get your test information from more then one website. There are a lot of biased writers and testers out there especially for the 9mm. Personnaly I dont care what caliber pistol people use, I'll take the 357sig any day over any of the others.

[mgobel]

Because I shot it better than 40 in my chosen carry platform (SIG 239) and I could practice with ammunition which featured close to the same performance as my carry loads.

Shot placement is critical...but a little extra power can't hurt( I hope).

While not an expert in metal fatigue, I would think that NATO 124 gr +p+ 9mm would wear out a 9mm 239 faster than 357 would wear out a 357 239.

YMMV

[jc2]

Theres no way you can honestly compare a 9mm to a 357sig...its impossible and your fooling yourself.
In truth, there is no way you can honestly compare the 9x19 to the 357 SIG and not realize they are virtually identical in performance.
What does the .357 Sig offer which is not already available? Are we missing something?

We have not observed any better performance with the .357 Sig than with the better 9mm loads; the better .40 S&W loads appear to offer superior performance compared with the .357 Sig. Buford Boone at the FBI Academy and I have compared our respective test data on the .357 Sig--our results are nearly identical. The best .357 Sig load appears to be the 125gr Gold Dot JHP. In both the FBI testing and our assessment, it offers virtually IDENTICAL performance as the 9 mm 124 gr +P Speer Gold Dot JHP in both bare gelatin and through the various intermediate barriers. Likewise, the 9mm 147 gr Winchester Ranger Talon JHP offers similar terminal performance. The best that can be said of the .357 Sig is that it equals the 9mm in terminal performance, although at the price of less ammunition capacity along with greater recoil, muzzle flash, and wear on the weapon. Both the .40 S&W and .45 ACP make larger holes in the target and therefore have the potential to more rapidly incapacitate an aggressive adversary in a lethal force encounter. In addition, the greater mass of the .40 S&W and .45 ACP bullets offer an improved chance of defeating an intervening obstacle while still having enough penetration to reach the vital organs of an armed opponent.

I fully agree with Mr. Boone when he writes that the .357 Sig is, “Not a great or lousy cartridge, just another choice.”

http://64.177.53.248/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000432.html

David DiFabio's (ammolab.com) penetration and expansion tests support Robert's (and Boone's) positions. The 9x19 (with current generation premium bullets) and 357 SIG are proving to be equally effective in LE shootings. You may want to believe you are gaining a measure of effectiveness with the 357 SIG, but the facts (versus faith, gunrags, and gunshop commandos) say otherwise.

No, LE is not "choosing the 357sig over 9mm a.40cal [sic]." At best, the 357 SIG is distant fourth in LE usage behind--you guessed it--the 9x19, .40 S&W and .45 ACP.

[Teufelhunden]

Methinks it might be a little early to declare the .357Sig to be the best one-shot manstopper out there since there is so little empirical data to support such a position relative to the mounds of information available on 9X19 and .40cal shootings...

-Teuf

[Preacherman]

A couple of points.

1. In defensive calibers, one has to ask about the environment in which the bullet will be used. The 357 SIG is a very good performer, but it's not the be-all and end-all of personal defence. It's probably a better penetrator (with the right bullet) than any of the others - that's one reason why "bonded" bullets are very popular in that caliber. Federal, Remington and Speer have all introduced "bonded" bullets, primarily because they hold together so well for better penetration. The initial impetus behind these bullets was LE use, where a BG's use of cover might require more penetration from their service weapons. Federal LE tests I've seen indicate that using "bonded" bullets, the 357 SIG out-penetrated all other common handgun calibers in auto glass and sheet metal. This is a definite plus for the round. However, this is specifically a law enforcement situation. For us ordinary folks, this sort of penetration is not a job requirement...

2. In terms of stopping performance on a bad guy, the standard against which all other rounds have been measured, for a decade or two, has been the .357 Magnum 125gr. JHP, running at approximately 1,400 fps or more out of a 4" barrel. Its street record is phenomenal. However, bear in mind that this street record was achieved initially in the days before reliably-expanding hollowpoints were generally available. Even with the less-than-optimum hollowpoints of the late 1970's and 1980's, there was enough velocity behind the bullet to give an excellent chance of expansion. Rounds moving slower, with the same design of hollowpoint, had an "iffy" expansion record, and over-penetration was frequent. Today, with really good hollowpoint designs, and the "next generation" bullets such as Cor-Bon's Pow'rBall and Federal's EFMJ making their appearance, bullet expansion is much more reliable, even at lower velocities. Thus, a 9mm. +P at about 1,200 fps is virtually guaranteed to expand (unless the hollow point gets clogged up with something). The 357 SIG fires essentially the same bullet at 150-200 fps greater velocity. It doesn't produce greater bullet performance.

3. A lot of folks talk about the "velocity gives greater energy dump" theory. This is unquestionably true - but just how much energy are we talking about here? No common defensive handgun round produces much more than 500-600 fpe. A typical carbine (.223, or a lever-action .30-30, or an AK-47 or SKS) or a 12ga. shotgun will triple or quadruple that energy level without raising a sweat. Quite simply, there is no existing defensive handgun round that comes close to rifle energy levels - even including RCBS and some of the other exotics - and that means that we're going to need more handgun rounds to do the job than we are rifle or shotgun rounds. As far as I'm concerned, if I have a handgun round that produces anywhere between 400 and 500 fpe, is a reliable expander for transfer of energy, and is accurate and readily controllable in rapid fire, I really don't care what caliber or cartridge is involved - it's up to me to place it where it'll do the most good (or harm, depending on one's perspective! :D ).

4. In the light of personal combat experience (18 years in a civil unrest situation), I've never trusted the 9mm./.38 Special class of cartridge as being a reliable fight stopper. This was on the basis of observed performance using 1970's and 1980's level bullet technology. I freely admit to this ingrained prejudice. However, in the past five years, I've had to admit that the advent of better-designed hollow point bullets, and the introduction of +P and +P+ ammunition, has made both rounds into rather more capable performers. It's very interesting to do a comparison between top loads of the 1980's (e.g. the "FBI Load" of a 158gr. LSWHP +P in .38 Special, or the Winchester Silvertip in 9mm.) and top loads of today (e.g. the Federal 9BPLE +P in 9mm., or the Winchester 130gr. SXT +P in .38 Special). The modern loads, in the same objective laboratory tests, significantly outperform the earlier-generation loads. I therefore have to concede that these weapons are now rather more effective "stoppers" than before. The 357 SIG does not offer that much of a quantum leap over the performance of previously marginal rounds, as the latter have "caught up" the technology lag.

5. I still adhere to the "bigger is better" school, again because of rather more personal combat experience than I'd like to have! It was my experience that a larger, heavier bullet was more likely to put someone down in a hurry than a lighter, faster bullet. I agree that compared to 1970's and 1980's technology, this is no longer the case - the lighter, faster stuff is vastly improved. However, so is the slower, heavier stuff! The advances in bullet and propellant technology that have so dramatically improved the smaller rounds have done the same thing for the larger rounds. I therefore still prefer carry calibers beginning with "4", and am quite unashamed about why I do so. Sure, I'll carry a .357 Magnum with great confidence, and a .38 snub or tiny .380 auto with some reservations (usually as a backup gun, or on those rare occasions when I simply can't conceal anything more authoritative): but given my druthers, I'll have a .40 or .44 or .45 on my hip.

6. As for increased wear on the gun in the 357 SIG chambering, this seems to be true, although the evidence is so far largely anecdotal. John Farnam has spoken of this (see here (http://www.defense-training.com/quips/19Jan03.html) for his comments). I don't know that this is a bad thing - just another factor to take into account in your gun maintenance schedules.

Hope this helps.

[PCRCCW]

Preacherman..........IMO,you just ended this thread :D Great points...all of them.

A couple of quick notes......ya, :rolleyes: I know :D

Whats with the feeding comments? I have yet to hear of a 40 S&W chambered gun not feeding. So how can a bottleneck round improve on a problem that, as far as I know, doesnt exist? Not flaming anyone..just curious..........

As for this quote.......

""What 9mm and 40S&W ammo, specifically, are they comparing the 357sig to?
I don't think its fair to compare +P+ rounds when it comes to performance and then use lower pressure rounds when it comes to wear and tear.""

I dont remember saying I was comparing things in low pressure in regards to wear and tear and then high pressure for performance?

To begin with their in NO LOW PRESSURE 40 S&W or 357 Sig rounds. They are loaded to a high case pressure....its the nature of the rounds design.

The Sig, by nature, is gonna be a slightly higher case pressure than the already high pressure 40 S&W...you cant have the same internal case pressure of the 40 and try to stuff it out a smaller opening 357, and NOT increase the case pressure.

Im comparing 9mm guns Ive shot over 10K rnds of +P and +P+ 9mm through..no increase in wear and tear over the same gun that didnt shoot the hotter ammo.....as long as I changed recoil springs when I should the wear was not there.

As far as the data Im stating about the Sig vs 40...Sig, Glock and most of the 357 Sig caliber makers are beginning to report that the Sig chambered guns are wearing quicker than the 40 S&W counterparts...same gun.

I cant say if its 1% or 25% difference....wont even try and go there. Im just quoting what Ive read........thats all.

This held true with ALL makers when the 40 came out initially. Most makers who tried to build the 40 on a 9mm platform, unless they had an already overbuilt platform to shoot it from, the gun was prone to metal fatigue problems and such.

IMO, like preacherman said..there is not a magic bullet.

Im not slamming any caliber..Ive owned and shot them all...I like them all.
For me and my experience, the 9mm for energy vs capacity vs recoil vs cost..the 9mm's hard to beat.

For me the ultimate CCW gun would be a 50 caliber, that shoots at the speed of light, has endless ammo qty, no recoil to speak of and is sighted from my vision tracking...............

Shoot well.............

[45auto]

The newer, smaller bullet designs are better because they expand into a larger bullet, in effect...true?

But, I have "read" that expansion occurs in the 60-70% range, so a fair chance they might not. Is that correct, current thought or has that changed?

Just curious!

[PCRCCW]

Yes, the newer bullet designs expand much better and efficiently than most of the older designs.......true. They also expand with less velocity than previously thought was needed....

I cant say what the % of expansion is. WAY TO MUCH CRITERIA that effects expansion. Shot placement, media hit, caliber, velocity, bullet design, etc...........................

I carry JHP's....and I trust them to do thier job if I go mine...............

Shoot well..

[jc2]

Whats with the feeding comments? I have yet to hear of a 40 S&W chambered gun not feeding. So how can a bottleneck round improve on a problem that, as far as I know, doesnt exist? Not flaming anyone..just curious..........
To add to your comments on the myth of the 357 SIG's superior feed reliability (or gunrag humus, if you prefer), the bottleneck design comes with its own set of feed reliability problems including a proclivity to nose-dive (particularly if the magazine springs become a little weak) and the need to headspace on both the case mouth and should (at least as implemented in the 357 SIG). It probably wouldn't hurt to point out the standing problem of case neck tension with the 357 SIG. (As an aside, probably the tapered design of the 9x19 will have slight theoretical advantage the 357 SIG and the straight-walled cartridges.) All that being said, I seriously doubt if you will see any difference feeding reliability between the Glock 17 and Glock 31, or P226/229/239 in 9x19 and 357 SIG. It's not like somehow the 357 SIG is blessed with some magic feed reliability (or the 9x19 and other rounds are somehow less than reliable).

[Preacherman]

45auto, to answer your question, yes, the percentage of hollow-point bullets that actually expand in a target is running at the 65% to 70% range. However, those that don't expand usually fail to do so because of one or more of the following problems:

1. Hollow-point cavity plugged with some material or other (e.g. clothing, tobacco from a packet of cigarettes in the shirt pocket, paper from documents ditto, etc.).

2. The round has passed through concealment or light cover (e.g. bushes, drywall, heavy grass) before striking the target. In doing so, very often the hollowpoint cavity is distorted (or filled with debris), and sometimes the bullet jacket separates from the core (another reason for the development of "bonded" ammo in recent years - much less jacket separation).

3. The bullet made a peripheral hit, perhaps on the forearm or leg, and passed through only an inch or two of flesh before exiting the body, missing bones and other harder objects. One can hardly blame a bullet for not expanding when there wasn't enough time in flesh for it to complete the process!

Again, the problem comes down to one of bullet placement. The best hollowpoint in the world, fired through a down jacket, is going to get plugged up with feathers before it ever strikes flesh, and it's unlikely to perform well. The worst hollowpoint in the world, fired with sufficient velocity at an unimpeded target, has a reasonable chance of expansion.

[clubsoda22]

David DiFabio's (ammolab.com) penetration and expansion tests support Robert's (and Boone's) positions. The 9x19 (with current generation premium bullets) and 357 SIG are proving to be equally effective in LE shootings. You may want to believe you are gaining a measure of effectiveness with the 357 SIG, but the facts (versus faith, gunrags, and gunshop commandos) say otherwise.

I know David DiFabio and would listen to him. The guy really knows his stuff.

[Missouri Mule]

What I think would be really cool is if they would come out with a .45 sig.

what do you think about choppin and neckin and .50 AE case to handle a .45 bullet? how about 1400 -1500 fps? heck while were at it lets chamber it in a beefed up 1911. a little bigger that a gov model but a heck of a lot smaller than a grizzly.

We could call it the "HIGH ROAD Load":neener: :neener: :neener:

[Preacherman]

Missouri Mule, it's already been done - see here (http://mysite.elixirlabs.com/index.php?uid=12665&page=1622)! :D

The round has been chambered in Desert Eagles and in the AMT AutoMag. I don't know what current-production pistols are chambered for it, but Cor-Bon is still selling the ammo, so there must be some out there...

[Erik]

I too wonder about the fat hot 9mm, for the reasons you cited.

[45auto]

Good thread and thanks for the responses.

[Beav]

PCRCCW, I didn't mean to come off negatively. Without knowing the specifics of these tests its hard to come to a clear conclusion. When comparing standard pressure 357sig and 9mm its a no brainer that the 357sig is going to wear out a gun faster, but its also a no brainer that for standard pressure the 357sig is a better performer. Without knowing the specifics of these tests, we don't know if they are basically proving what we already know or if they are saying that 357sig is harder on handguns even on loads with similar ballistics. And even then how much harder?

I could swear I read somewhere that some of the +P+ 9mm loads are just as high in case pressure and in some cases higher than the 357sig. Any truth to this?

[Rich357]

The .357SIG is fun, accurate, and reliable. It is interesting to have a little bottle neck pistol cartridge. You really have to pump up a 9mm Para to come close to a "standard" .357SIG.

Rich

[Scoob]

My opinions:

The357sig is more powerful than the 9mm. This is good and bad. Good for damage potential and bad for controllabilty. It is also accurate in general.

Expanding bullets in the 357sig are not going to be overpenitrators because they are light, acually maybe too light for the amount of expantion they're getting. They look like pancakes.

The noise and flash of the 357sig would go away with heavier bullets(slowing it down), but no one seems to want to try anything but 125gr.
This is why the 357 is known for these qualities, because 99% of the loads are the same.

The .40 has more load wieght choices than the 357sig, and I like that option. Between these two, recoil depends on the load, power and energy depends on the load. With the same bullet weight they will do the same thing(velocity/energy/recoil/blast/flash).I don't understand 357 advocates calling the 40 "short n weak" when they're mighty 357 is just as short and just as weak:). Pot calling the kettle black?

The 357 is fun to shoot, and is accurate( probably more so than the .40). It doesn't need a reason to exist other than that. BUT... I like the .40 better:neener:

[355sigfan]

I like the 357 sig. It provides 357 mag 125 grain ballistics in an auto. It is about 100 to 200 fps faster than the fastest 9mm with the same bullet weight. Its a good round.
Pat

[jc2]

"Ballistics," which is "the flight characteristics of a projectile" is kind of a loose term when comparing of handgun cartridges. It is essentially meaningless--at least in the context of comparing the performance/effectiveness of modern service calibre ammunition.

To compare the performance of modern handgun bullets to the bullets (and bullet technology) of twenty-five years ago is even worse than meaningless. The 125-grain .357 Magnum was good in its day because it was one of the few rounds that provided sufficient energy for the JHPs (actually SJHP in the case of the .357 Magnum) of that generation to work (but at the cost of terrible muzzle blast, muzzle flash and recoil). It was not velocity/energy in and of itself that made the .357 Magnum effective. The .357 Magnum of the 70s and 80s was effective because it generated sufficient velocity/energy to make the bullets of that generation work. Fortunately today, with the state of modern bullet technology, we are not near as reliant on velocity/energy to obtain optimum bullet performance. In fact, we actually obtain far superior bullet performance/effectiveness (relative to 125-grain .357 Magnum) at considerably lower velocity/energy levels and without the tremendous negatives (muzzle blast, muzzle flip, wear/tear on the shooter and weapon of that now unneeded extra energy/velocity). For example, remove the weapon issues (autoloader versus revolver), the Winchester RA9T (or RA9TA or Gold Dots, etc.) is a superior round to the 125-grain Remington and Federal .357 Magnums of 25 years ago.

Frankly, I don't want a round that "provides 357 mag 125 grain ballistics in an auto." I want a round that exceeds the .357 Magnum 125-grain performance. Fortunately, I can achieve that with today's 9x19s (even at standard pressures), 357 SIGs, .40 S&Ws (even with "mid-velocity" loads), and .45 ACPs. Bullet technology has come a long, long ways since the 80s. Let's stop living in the past!

[Beren]

I've carried a Glock 32 for over a year now, and I really love it. Installed my own night sights and got them right the first time without scratching anything up. I also love to shoot it and find it very controllable and extremely accurate, but I'm a big guy, too - 6'7". Something that has come to worry me, however, is the amount of hearing damage I might suffer if I ever have to utilize my Glock 32 in a tight space. Or any space, for that matter.

Don't get me wrong, my life - and the lives of others - are more important than my hearing. All other things being equal, however, I'd prefer to keep my life /and/ my hearing, dig? ;)

Has anyone performed controlled tests to measure how damaging the reports of various calibers/weapons are to one's hearing? I know that "in general" the lesser the caliber, the lesser the noise, the lesser the damage...but it'd be nice to have a more firm grasp on specifics.

So as I evaluate what to buy for Christmas (as if I haven't bought enough already!), I need to determine whether the potential hearing damage I might incur firing my Glock 32 in .357SIG outweights its benefits as a defensive caliber and whether I should consider replacing it with a cartridge more friendly to my hearing.

And what would be more friendly, yet reliable? .45 ACP? .40S&W? 10mm (cough cough!)? 38..

[boogalou]

Nightcrawler bought this up at the start of the thread so I'll ask also.....

What advantages does the .357sig have over the old .38 super? Are manufacturers trying to re-invent the wheel?

[Sean Smith]

.357 Sig is shorter than .38 Super, so you can fit it into a smaller grip frame than .38 Super. It also has slightly hotter ballistics.

[surfinUSA]

I don't have a 357 sig. I do have a couple of 40s they work well and although I've thought of getting a 357 sig barrel for them I don't really believe there is enough of a gain to warrant the expense. The 40 works very well in the real world and although short , in reality its quite far from weak. The fact that it fits in a 9mm sized compact gun doesn't hurt either. A lot of the 40s detractors are fans of the 10mm and in many cases I can't help but think there is some sour grapes their as there favorite cartridge was eclipsed by the 40. Not that the 10mm is a bad round I'd love to own one some day, but not for police work or concealed carry.

On the other hand the 357 sig is claimed to work well. We'll see. Not that many departments use it. As with the 9mm, 45 acp, 38 special, 357 mag, and 40 S&W, we will also hear of a BG that has been hit multiple times with a 357 sig and did not go down. Sorry, there are no magic bullets or hangun cartridges. As with any cartridge, eventually it will fail to work as expected.

As far as bottle necks go this is nothing new and if you look you can find various problems with some bottle neck reliability (usually with extraction problems IIRC).

Personally, I think the 357 sig is a capable round but is no better or worse than the other defensive handgun cartridges out there. Each has its own pluses and minuses. Really nothing more than personal preferrence when it comes down to the end.

I guess the 357 sig vs. the rest is going to take the place of the 9mm vs. 45 acp argument. But hopefully not with the same frequency.

[355sigfan]

Well, Corbon 115 gr loads for 9mm go to 1350 fps, and so do the Rem +P+'s. I know, the 357 load is for 124 grainers, but I say that is nearly not worth mentioning.
END

Well lets compare apples to apples. Corbons 115 grian 357 sig loads averaged 1550 in my GLock 31. Corbons 115 grain load averaged 1350 in my Beretta 92.
Pat

[jnb01]

I will venture a guess on the 357 Sig's success in LE field use, or atleast part of it. The caliber was introduced in 1996 IIRC, around the time bullet technology really started making strides. Basically, only three loads have been used by those agencies adopting it; Gold Dot, Ranger, and to a lesser extent, Federal Tactical.

All of the service calibers perform quite well when these three loads are utilized, as they are widely considered as the top three designs currently available. If for instance, those selecting the 9mm, were limited to using the 127gr +P+/ 147gr Ranger, 135gr +P Federal Tactical, or 124gr +P Gold Dot, I'm quite sure results from the field would be impressive as well. However, there are simply far more "bad" 9mm loads out there to muddy the waters so to speak.

Many folks who dispairage the 9mm, do so by often citing it's performance in the past. The single most referenced incident being the 86' Miami FBI shootout, which took place 17 years ago. It's a simple fact, that all of the service calibers fail, and will continue to for various reasons. While the 9mm is often not the top choice when new LE contracts are awarded, there are still many larger LE agencies who either issue it or authorize it's use.

Here are a few examples........
Philadelphia PD
Atlanta GA. PD
LAPD
San Bernadino PD
Santa Clara PD
SDPD
LASO
NYPD
NYSO
LVMPD
NJSP
Dallas TX. PD
Chicago PD
Palm Bay FL. PD
U.S. Customs
Ect........

As noted, when selecting the better loads for each, performance can be quite similar, here's an example from ammolab.

Through 4-layers of denim, test pistols are a G19 and G32 respectively.

357 Sig 125gr Ranger (RA357T)
Velocity = 1340fps/ Penetration = 13.5"/ Recovered Diameter = .63"

9mm 127gr +P+ Ranger (RA9TA)
Velocity = 1219fps/ Penetration = 14.8"/ Recovered Diameter = .63"

Additionally, the 9mm offers standard pressure loads such as the 147gr (RA9T), which routinely expand's to .60 caliber, while offering 14 - 15 inches of penetration, all without the higher pressure levels associated with the 357 Sig.

Best, jnb01

[RCReecer]

Wow, there is a lot of good info here!

I'm in the boat of "not the best choice, just another choice."

Couple of points:

Just because LE uses a specific round does not make it the best. If you think about it, what doesn't/hasn't LE used? Also, there are a lot more factors in what a specific agencies uses than terminal efficiency. Cost, availability, politics, performace, and the list goes on and on. If Glock started cutting massive deals to major LE agencies to use the 45GAP, does that mean that the 45GAP is the best cartridge out there?

As far a feed reliability, that is subject to the manufacturer of the pistol and ammunition. I don't think the design of the cartridge has anything to do with it. Let's face it, if the 9mm, 40SW, 10mm, 45ACP, or any other popular handgun ammunition did not feed well, they wouldn't be here today. If any given 1911 will feed 45 ball ammo all day long, but sometimes hiccups on Gold Dots; is it a design flaw of the cartridge, or just the fact that that particular pistol does not like that particluar bullet shape/style?

Best kill ratio? I don't think that the 357sig should even be considered for a "kill ratio." Give it nearly 100 years of production and heavy use, then come back with numbers for "one shot stops."

I carry a 10mm by choice after a LOT of research. I couldn't find any advantage any other cartridge has over it. Want a bullet that goes 1600fps+ - not a problem. You can do that with a 135gn bullet. Want something a little heavier, say 220gn. Not a problem, and pushing 1100+ fps as well. Cost isn't really a factor - $10/50 isn't too bad for a high-quality practice round. Widespread availability isn't there yet, but give it time. For now it's as far away as your internet connection. If price was a deciding factor on what we carry, we'd all be shooting 22lr!

Moral of the story - shoot what you like and like what you shoot. IMO caliber isn't as important as platform. If you like the feel of the Glock - go to the range and shoot a couple of different calibers. Do the same with whichever brand you prefer. I happen to prefer the Glock 29, so that's what I carry. Will I purchase other pistols/calibers besides the Glock - you bet I will!!

[RWK]

Threads comparing the .357 Sig to other defensive rounds have been frequently posted here, on TFL, and elsewhere. Whenever they are, some posts are certain to suggest: “The .357 Sig provides ballistics similar to the .357 magnum”. These comments are essentially inaccurate.

The fact is, top-end .357 Sig performance roughly equates to bottom-end .357 magnum ballistics. With 124/125 gain loads, essentially similar performance is obtained; however, the .357 magnum offers a wide-variety of heavier rounds and higher velocities for personal defense, hunting, and so forth.

This is not .357 Sig “bashing”; I certainly understand why this is an attractive caliber, especially for major state and Federal law enforcement agencies. But -- PLEASE -- don’t imply that the .357 Sig is the autoloader equivalent to the .357 magnum.

Rant-Mode now deactivated.

:D

[tex_n_cal]

RWK is right, the original load for the .357 was a 158gr gas checked lead bullet at 1500 fps, which was a formidable load.

You can't buy them that hot anymore, probably due to the plethora of small light revolvers that would give their owners nightmares should they actually touch off a '50's vintage .357 mag load.

******

I've never loaded for the .357 Sig, but I do have a .400 Cor-bon 1911 barrel, and have shot it in my Colts.

You better be damned careful handloading any of those short bottlenecked cases - it is very difficult to get the bullets fitting tight enough to prevent bullet setback in feeding, which causes pressures to skyrocket and guns to Kaboom!

I was able to successfully load the .400 Cor-bon, but I knew how to modify dies to get bullets to fit cases properly. In 10mm it's hard to find bullets with channellures, though the factory CB's come with them.

In the .357 Sig, you may actually have a little easier time, since it may be possible to find such bullets. Even if you don't handload, I'd suggest you carefully check your ammo (especially if it's reloads) to make sure you don't have a bullet setback problem.

******

As for the caliber? I'm sure it's fine, but I prefer the .45, thank you.:D

[usnavymasterchief]

What Good Is It??? It's very, very good.

[M58]

More choices!:p