What's the point of .357 Sig?


PDA






bushmaster1313
March 21, 2011, 08:51 AM
How does the .357 Sig compare to .40 S&W

Can you get more into the same magazine?
recoil?
muzzle energy?
wound channel?

Thank you

Lou

If you enjoyed reading about "What's the point of .357 Sig?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
silversport
March 21, 2011, 09:01 AM
the idea was to replicate the 125GR .357 Magnum out of a 4" revolver for those departments that refused to switch to semi autos because they were so confident in it...

usually the same amount of rounds can be carried as the .40S&W...I leave the rest of your questions to those who may have more experience...I found it snappy but different than .40S&W (I like it better) and it isn't just a faster 9MM...with Speer Gold Dot (the ammunition that I had the most experience with) it was fine against barriers like car glass and similar and did very well in ballistic gelatin...

Bill

rbernie
March 21, 2011, 09:16 AM
The initial idea was to duplicate the 357Mag load that M&S made famous. The end result was excellent barrier penetration from the bonded bullets needed to hold together at the higher velocities.

Can you get equal barrier penetration from a 40S&W using a similarly constructed bullet? Probably, but dunno for sure that it's been proven out.

You certainly get a snappier recoil and a lot more KaBlammo! out of the round than out of a 40S&W or other...

bushmaster1313
March 21, 2011, 09:20 AM
The .40 S&W is plenty zippy for me out of a 226 Sig

AK103K
March 21, 2011, 10:24 AM
You certainly get a snappier recoil and a lot more KaBlammo! out of the round than out of a 40S&W or other...
357SIG has a bark (I never got the "flash" some claim to get, but that may be an ammo thing), but everything else compared to .40S&W is on the plus side.

I always found guns with the 357SIG barrels in them had less recoil and were easier to shoot with than the same gun with the .40 barrels in them. If you know what a 9mm +P+ feels like to shoot, then you know what a 357SIG feels like.

Accuracy, from a pure accuracy standpoint, was always better with the 357SIG.

Having had both, and shooting them out of the same guns, I preferred the 357SIG over the .40.

With that said, I have gone back to 9mm, since I can pretty much have my cake and eat it too. Cheap ammo for practice, and near 357SIG performance when I want it with +P+.

Storm
March 21, 2011, 11:47 AM
AK103K just saved me some time. What he said! Plus one. Ditto.

As a practice if I have a .40 or .357 SIG I always have an extra barrel in the other caliber (except my USP and 2000SK, which I'm working on) and the .40 barrels sit on a shelf and the .357 sit in the gun.

.40 can be "torquey" and snappy while I find the .357 SIG to be more of a smooth push more akin to a .45. The recoil is sigfnificant but not unmanageable or unpleasant. Muzzle climb and second shot recovery is going to vary by gun. For example, my Steyr MA1 (with lower bore axis) results in far less muzzle climb that either my SIG 226 or 2340. Even with the 226, a DAK, second shot recovery is quick enough to take full advantage of the first trigger reset for quick doubletaps.

ny32182
March 21, 2011, 12:03 PM
As someone who shoots a little bit of both from time to time out of the same gun (G32, with .40 barrel as appropriate):

1) Same number of rounds (casehead is the exact same diameter)
2) I find .357sig snappier/harder to control than .40. Full power .357sig can do 200fps more than 9mm +p, and this is certainly evident in the recoil of the loads I've compared (Speer 124gr +P vs Speer 125gr (I think) factory Gold Dots that are supposed to be around 1350+fps)
3) .357sig has more muzzle energy
4) Should be pretty similar, but check your favorite loads' gel tests... generally I would expect .357sig would be a little narrower/deeper, and .40 would be a little fatter/shallower all else equal.

If I had to shoot one or the other in volume, I would take .40 due to recoil characteristics, super common brass, and easier to reload than .357sig in every respect.

AK103K
March 21, 2011, 12:15 PM
I suppose the recoil thing is subjective. Different guns can also influence your decision.

I had a Glock 31, as well as a Lone Wolf 9mm conversion barrel for it, and when shooting hot reloads or +P+ 9mm out of the LW barrel, the recoil felt about the same to me as the Speer or Federal 357SIG 125 grainers I would shoot out of it with the factory barrel installed.

Now shooting my brothers Glock 23 in .40, I always felt it was snappier and had a stronger recoil impulse than my 31.

Now shooting either caliber in my SIG's, and they handled the recoil better than the Glocks, and always had a more softer feel when shot.

Strahley
March 21, 2011, 01:10 PM
You get the lower capacity of a .40, the smaller bullet diameter of a 9mm, all of the flash and bang of a revolver, the snappy recoil of a .40, and the pricetag/availability of 10mm

Z-Michigan
March 21, 2011, 02:08 PM
I have a G22 (40 S&W) and a 357 SIG conversion barrel. I find the 357 SIG to be virtually the same as .40 S&W in noise, and same or marginally less in felt recoil. I would enjoy shooting it but for ammo cost, which makes it just a novelty for me.

357 SIG probably makes sense for highway patrol agencies, much as the ballistically similar 38 Super made sense for the same role 70 years ago. For most other uses it doesn't really do much if anything that .40 S&W or even 9mm won't do.

You get the lower capacity of a .40, the smaller bullet diameter of a 9mm, all of the flash and bang of a revolver, the snappy recoil of a .40, and the pricetag/availability of 10mm

Very close to the truth.

BrainOnSigs
March 21, 2011, 02:15 PM
Very flat shooting, fast, accurate, excellent penetration...what's not to like? It is my favor handgun caliber to carry and shoot. I have friends who like to carry it in the winter months due to the amount of extra clothing,etc that people wear. I assume they like the extra penetration. I wouldn't know...I live in Florida. :D

You can argue about the cost of ammo....but shooting sports to me isn't about savings. I buy in bulk or reload.

I have sold all my .40 handguns and/or barrels and haven't looked back. I don't see a need for both. I own plenty of 9mm and 10mm to cover my other needs.

SIGLBER
March 21, 2011, 02:26 PM
Same as the .327 Magnum and all the other new calibers to come along. To get you to buy a new gun and goodies to go with the new caliber. Really the big oldies for auto's the 9mm and .45 will do about all you need a gun to do. In a revolver .38 Special, .357 Magnum and so on are fine. The .45 crap er GAP is just wheezing along. Remember the .41 AE? Calibers come and go all the time. The classics remain because they work. Plain and simple.

AK103K
March 21, 2011, 02:35 PM
You can argue about the cost of ammo....but shooting sports to me isn't about savings. I buy in bulk or reload.
Up until the last ammo debacle, the .40 and 357SIG were the exact same price when bought in bulk. The last two cases of each I bought from Ammoman back before it started, were around $260 a case. I see now, hes getting a $400/1000 for the 357SIG, a $100 premium over the .40.

At the time I was buying it by the case, it wasnt really worth reloading for. These days, the difference makes it a little more worthwhile, although its still not cheap.

As always though, 9mm is still the cheapest to buy, and .45acp, the most expensive, so not much has really changed.

Ala Tom
March 21, 2011, 04:09 PM
"You get the lower capacity of a .40"

How can this be true? I have an MP40 with a 15 round magazine marked for either 40 or 357sig. If I get the 357 barrel, I can shoot that too, 15 at a time. I'll be doing that as soon as the novelty of 40SW has worn off. I can see some situations in which the extra energy would be good.

AK103K
March 21, 2011, 04:17 PM
I think he meant the "same" lower capacity of the .40.

Strahley
March 21, 2011, 05:43 PM
Yep. Same size gun, you will have less .40/.357 SIG rounds than 9mm

Jed Carter
March 22, 2011, 06:04 AM
Besides the increased velocities the .357SIG has another benefit over most other pistol calibers. It feeds very reliably, with virtualy no problems ever, when you try to shove a .355 bullet into a .40 chamber it fits everytime. I have two pistols chambered in .357SIG, I swap out the barrels and shoot both .40S&W and .357SIG out of the same pistols. Which do I prefer? 9mm of course, actually I shoot the .357 better than I do .40 and much prefer it to the .40, but shoot a lot more .40 than .357SIG due to cost. Actually I do like 9mm way better than either, and am changing my home defense pistol to a 9mm from .357SIG. Terminal performance is acceptable from 9mm, it is unlikely any threat will be neutralized with only one shot from any pistol caliber. I can shoot 9mm way faster on target than .40/.357/.45, just my experience.

ny32182
March 22, 2011, 09:26 AM
Personally I don't really buy the "better feeding" thing with 357sig; first of all it isn't like other cartridges have feeding problems anyway, and besides that, most bullets are RN/TC/etc where the front of the bullet is much smaller than the back of the chamber. Basically, I doubt anyone would ever be able to produce reliable evidence that a bottleneck pistol cartridge feeds better.

451 Detonics
March 22, 2011, 02:26 PM
Sig wanted a propitiatory cartridge with their name on it much like what S&W did with the .40 S&W. It is all about marketing.

Remo223
March 22, 2011, 02:53 PM
357sig is more accurate and feeds more reliably. It was intended to be the semi auto equivalent to the 357mag revolver. Two disadvantages are the reduced mag capacity compared to other 9mm rounds, and the price of the ammo. Most people prefer the recoil of the 357sig over the 40S&W. But not all, as this thread bears out.

wow6599
March 22, 2011, 03:30 PM
It's a 9mm going about 200 fps faster........there's more to it then that, but that's the way I look at it.

Z-Michigan
March 22, 2011, 04:57 PM
It's a 9mm going about 200 fps faster........there's more to it then that, but that's the way I look at it.

There isn't much more than that, and with some loads it's only about 100 fps faster. But if it suits your purposes, great.

Remo223
March 22, 2011, 05:01 PM
There's a little bit more to it. I don't understand the principle, but supposedly bottleneck cartridges are slightly more accurate than straight walled cartridges. They also jam less.

AK103K
March 22, 2011, 05:09 PM
If there is a difference in accuracy, I doubt its enough to matter. Reliability wise, I've never noticed any difference.

Power wise, I emailed Speer with a question about this when I got my first 357SIG. Their reply was this.....

"The 9mm is a 35,000 psi, +P is 38,500 psi and +P+ is 40,000 psi. The 357 SIG is a 40,000 psi. Bullets of the same weight will approximate the same velocities in SIG and +P+. The difference is gun construction, all 9mm's will not handle +P+. All of the 357 SIG's are made to handle the pressures for the caliber."

Remo223
March 22, 2011, 05:14 PM
agreed.

However, 357sig should theoretically outperform +P+ in longer barrels due to greater case capacity.

AK103K
March 22, 2011, 05:34 PM
I dont disagree. The 9mm is playing catch up and is actually maxed out when it comes close. The 357SIG is in its base loading at that point, and a few companies, like Double Tap, have pushed it further.

I just dont see that theres that big a difference, and 9mm is cheaper for practice, both in bulk and reloaded, and +P+ give me basically 357SIG power, with a couple more rounds in the mag to boot.

BrainOnSigs
March 23, 2011, 03:04 AM
If there is a difference in accuracy, I doubt its enough to matter. Reliability wise, I've never noticed any difference.

Power wise, I emailed Speer with a question about this when I got my first 357SIG. Their reply was this.....

"The 9mm is a 35,000 psi, +P is 38,500 psi and +P+ is 40,000 psi. The 357 SIG is a 40,000 psi. Bullets of the same weight will approximate the same velocities in SIG and +P+. The difference is gun construction, all 9mm's will not handle +P+. All of the 357 SIG's are made to handle the pressures for the caliber."

Which is an excellent point. Especially if the +P+ crowd are using the factory weight recoil spring. Factor in the cost once you start buying +P+ ammo. It is no longer cheaper than .357 Sig ammo.

I never feel under gunned when carrying my H&K P2000SK in .357 Sig. 9+1 with a spare mag will get any trained shooter thru a self-defense scenario. There have been multiple self defense shootings in central Florida over the last several months. 3 rounds were fired in one shooting, which was the most of the reported incidences.

AK103K
March 23, 2011, 09:27 AM
I use factory springs in my 9mm Glocks, and I shoot mostly hot reloads for practice, as well as an occasional box of +P+. The wear on those guns is a good bit less than what was showing on my Glock 31 just shooting standard 357SIG, and it didnt have near the rounds though it.

Where the price difference in ammo really comes in, is with practice ammo, both factory and reloads. 9mm is just cheaper, and by usually by a good bit. Premium ammo isnt all that different across the calibers, but tends to go up a buck or two a box as the caliber increases.

Shooting hot reloads is basically the same "feeling" wise, as shooting +P+, so practice is really pretty close.

As far as feeling good about "capacity", check out Ayoobs article in American Handgunner this issue. You may want to ponder some more on the subject.

Starts at page 32. Its a good read.

http://fmgpublications.ipaperus.com/FMGPublications/AmericanHandgunner/AHMJ11/

BrainOnSigs
March 23, 2011, 09:41 AM
As a Sig and Glock armorer, I have a fairly decent working knowledge of handguns and their construction. I have seen some seriously abused guns that are ammo and recoil spring weight related. I agree that a small diet of +P+ won't ruin most guns. At a minimum I want the gun construction to be on par with what I shooting thru it.....at all times.

Has anyone ever won a my favorite caliber vs your favorite caliber argument? I personally like .357 Sig. I shoot it well. I have had the chance to take a lot of shooting related training over the years, including shooting thru barriers, taking long shots, etc. I find that .357 Sig excels in many such scenarios.

Ayoob....good writer. I have meet him twice. I still take what he says with a large grain of salt. And yes......you will always find a case where your amount of ammo might not be enough. Unfortunately I can't carry one of my ARs around with several 30 round mags......which at times I would if I could. :D

AK103K
March 23, 2011, 10:22 AM
I understand the construction vs whats being shot through it part and agree for the most part. If you are shooting a steady diet of +P+ 9mm through a gun not rated for it, you should see accelerated wear.

Although as a Glock armorer, you must have seen the battering the 357SIG's and apparently, the .40's get to the underside of the slides from the loading block impacting it. Mine was pretty beat up, and to the point of having "burrs", where the couple of 17's I have, that have had a lot of +P, +P+ and hot reloads through them, only show some minor finish wear in the same spot. Not exactly sure what that means, but from looks alone, it looks like even the "hot" 9mm, is easier on the guns.

Now my SIG's, never showed any accelerated wear with the 357SIG, and I had more rounds through them than I did my Glock. My SIG 9mm's dont seem to have any problems with the hot ammo either, but they dont have the rounds through them my Glocks do.

When I first started shooting the 357SIG, I was really gung ho for it , and thought it was the next best thing to sliced, light bread. Now after living with them for about 8 years, and shooting them regularly, I really dont see a whole lot of difference between it and the 9mm, especially with certain loads, and I can shoot more for a good bit less money, which for me, is a better thing.

As far as the "amount" of ammo thing. These days, with ammo being as close in performance as it is between the major calibers, Ill take as much as I can get in the gun. If it were to be needed, Id prefer to have ammo left in the gun when its done, than to have it go dead in the middle of something.

I suppose its all who you have the most faith in, Murphy, or the "rule of 3's" My money is always on Murphy. :)

BrainOnSigs
March 23, 2011, 01:32 PM
I agree that the Glocks exhibit greater wear than the Sigs. I have a P226ST and a Sig P229 (among 10 other Sigs) that have seen over 15K in rounds thru each of .357 Sig and are still running strong after normal servicing including spring replacements.

That said, I have a G31, a G32 and a G33 that have seen a quite a few rounds and are all within a 1,000 rounds of ech other......and the amount wear is very different on each.....the G33 seems to take a licking and keeps on ticking. The G31 seems to have the most wear. Interesting......

Peter M. Eick
March 26, 2011, 09:43 PM
1700+ fps out of a 88 grn JHP.

That is the point.

I don't know how you would do that with the 40 short and weak.

But I can and do do it with my 229 sport and 357 sig. I call them "screamers" for the amount of muzzle blast I get. Laser accurate also.

Scoob
March 26, 2011, 11:10 PM
I like 357 sig quite a bit. I reload it and it is a bit more difficult being necked down but not bad. I enjoy shooting it and I advise anyone who does to learn to reload because ammo is steep. I call it my 9mm magnum and it has a slightly more pronounced muzzle blast but really that is overstated in forums. The higher power loads are loud but that is the case with any cartridge. No more or less accurate than anything else. There is more false information out there with this cartridge than any of them. On one side there are the fanboys who act like it's a rifle round (it's no 357 magnum, not even close). on the other side are those who say it's no better than 9mm +p+. It is much more than a 9mm from my experience, there is a big difference

Comparing it to .40...I guess I'm the only person in the world who understands it's enegry "advantage" is totally based on the fact that every load is 125gr or less. I reload both 357sig and .40 and there is just not much difference AT ALL. In fact I get slightly more ME from .40 using longshot powder with 135gr bullets than what I can get from 357sig with 125gr as well as 147gr vs. 150gr. 357 fanboys compare 180 grain factory .40 loads to the most powerful 357sig load out there (or their handloads) and think "wow look at that muzzle energy". From my experience they are as equal as two cartridges can get. To get super velocity in .40, sectional density stinks, thus the 357s smaller caliber is useful to get that energy while maintaining useful SD.

I slightly prefer .40 to 357sig, only because It can be loaded with so many various bullet weights from 125-200gr and the fact that the bottle neck has been a learning curve for me relaoding . For a service cartridge or self defence? Flip a coin. I would be happy with either.

Quoheleth
March 26, 2011, 11:17 PM
So, how does a .357 Sig compare to a .38 Super?

Q

Peter M. Eick
March 27, 2011, 02:48 AM
I can pretty much reload my sig will best the super for most bullet weights I have experimented with. I started with the Sig and am now working on the Super. I would tend to believe that I can get maybe 50 to 100 fps out of the sig more than the Super with reasonable bullets. Go for the heavies and the Super probably takes the advantage but I am still working the 115 and 90 grn bullets now.

silversport
March 27, 2011, 03:33 AM
So, how does a .357 Sig compare to a .38 Super?

Q
357 SiG is hotter than most similarly weighted commercial ammunition and the 357 SiG is built on a smaller frame than the usually full sized Super .38...
Bill

Black G31
October 20, 2011, 02:16 PM
People ask whats the difference,stand in front of a 357,and a 9mm and then ask whats the difference,if your able to....

Skribs
October 20, 2011, 03:32 PM
IMO, it depends on your application. They both have their advantages - the .40 has a wider wound channel and greater availability (I can't get an XDm in .357 Sig, and an XDm .40 is my handgun of choice), but the .357 has greater penetration and, from what I understand, better accuracy. For my applications, the wider wound channel is the better option.

para38super
October 20, 2011, 04:14 PM
357 SiG is hotter than most similarly weighted commercial ammunition and the 357 SiG is built on a smaller frame than the usually full sized Super .38...
Bill
Commercially yes, but for a reloader the 38 super is a better way to go.

340PD
October 20, 2011, 04:19 PM
Ask the TSA Air Marshals. They shoot up thousands of rounds per month at my range for practice.

DenaliPark
October 20, 2011, 05:04 PM
How does the .357 Sig compare to .40 S&W

Can you get more into the same magazine?
recoil?
muzzle energy?
wound channel?

Thank you

Lou
Well, there is no point, it's just a 9mm souped up to .40....

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