Is the 4 inch 357 Magnum overrated???

[1911Tuner]

.357

In three 4-inch Smith & Wesson revolvers, the hot 125-grain hollowpoint ammo averaged a little over 1400 fps for Federal, Winchester and Remington
The Remington comes in a bit hotter than the other two, and the Winchester a bit less so. IIRC, the lowest velocity was about 1380, and the highest was a tick over 1450...but it's been about 15 years since the I took the stats.
In a much used 6-inch 586, the ammo nearly kissed 1500.

The Remington lots averaged higher velocities in a pair of 3-inch Model 13s, coming in at around 1360 fps. Not too shabby.

Now for the interesting part. I have an old lot of 158-grain LSWC ammo that
went a tick over 1300 in two of the 4-inch revolvers, and over 1350 in the 6-inch. Seems that factory .357 ammo has been softened a bit in 50 years...and firing it back to back with modern offerings reflects that. It's noticeably more rambunctious. Could it be that that they discovered what the actual pressures were for the older ammo and got afrighted?

Curious...The claimed 1350 fps for the Sig round. Is that for 115-grain or 124?

 

[JohnBT]

"The 4' .357 is no longer a reasonable option for serious tactical adventures and the 4" barrelled .357 does not belong in the hunting arena."

I'm not tactical. Can I still use a 4" .357 sometimes?

You mean I have to stop hunting little critters with match grade wadcutters in my 4-inch Police Service-Six?

Guess I missed the memos on these finer points of gun ownership.

John

 

[MCgunner]

Yeah, I'm with JohnBT, how about us non-tacticool types who ain't planning an assault on the Taliban? For self defense, a good man with a revolver, even an SA revolver, is still a dangerous opponent. Don't tell Jerry Miculek he can't use his Smith revolvers anymore because they're too slow or inaccurate or whatever.

I have killed two deer with a Blackhawk with irons, okay has a 6 1/2" barrel. One of 'em was a tick over 50 yards. I have shot rabbit with a 4" Rossi and taken one Javelina with it. I see the 4" K frame size .357 as one of the most useful outdoor revolvers a guy can have for hiking and such and it's fully capable of hunting deer size game if you restrict your ranges to 50 yards in and you can shoot it.

 

[Brian Williams]

Yes, by many Gun Shop Commando, but it does work for what I need.

It will not spin either me or my opponent when I shoot, it does not skin a rabbit or knock anybody down, it will not completely deafen me when I shoot it indoors or blind me when I shoot it after dark, but it does a good job as a hand gun round and a great job as a short range carbine round.

 

[Thek9]

What Arena?

True thrill of thrills, My Coonhounds, Me & my "FOUR" Inch GP100 .357 and a big ol' smelly tusker boar. I don't hunt in a arena I hunt in the woods for sport.

I never got that obsolete memo either. I'll tell you what though my wheelies are sure prurrdy and I'll bet my life on them.

T-

 

[absolute0]

4" .357 magnum over rated?

Are pretty girls, ice cream cones, comfortable shoes or unexpected cash windfalls over rated?

Such a silly question

 

[JMusic]

You know Tuner I've noticed the same thing with the older ammo in 357. I still have a box of Super Vels and though I haven't run over a chrony they have a noticeable bigger boom and recoil. The muzzel flash out of the barrel and cylinder gap is larger and brighter too. I heard some of these loads exceeded 1500 fps.

Jim

 

[Greg8098]

Not saying that the 4 inch .357 revolver is obsolete, just trying to compare " factory " magnum loads to " factory " Sig loads. What I meant by overrated is the advertised 1450 fps. not the actual firearm .

 

[grendelbane]

I think that the 357 SIG may have suffered the same fate as its older brother. I bought a P239 that came with a box of Federal 125 JHP, and it chronographed at 1390 FPS. 2 P229s I got the chance to shoot both broke 1400. These days, I hear the 1350 figure being quoted often.

The 9x23mm Winchester 125 grain Silvertip load will break 1500 FPS from a slightly longer barrel. Still, considering the short barrel, and a short cartridge length that will fit in 9mm frame pistols, the 357 SIG has a very impressive performance.

I had to have a 357 SIG barrel for my Delta Elite. One nice thing is that I can then use just about any 9mm bullet. Those hollow base 115 grain FMJs from Winchester can be made to go extremely fast!

Unfortunately, such high velocities are hard on barrel life, and the bullets themselves do not always perform well at such velocities. Still fun to shoot a couple over the chronograph now and then, and they are surprizingly accurate.

 

[MCgunner]

Not saying that the 4 inch .357 revolver is obsolete, just trying to compare " factory " magnum loads to " factory " Sig loads. What I meant by overrated is the advertised 1450 fps. not the actual firearm

And, my opinion is, there's more to the .357 Magnum than a 125 grain bullet at 1450 or whatever advertized factory velocity, but that's ALL there is to the .357 sig. You can't get a buffalo bore 180 grain load in .357 Sig OR hand load an equivalent and you CAN match its capabilities with its parent cartridge, the .40 S&W. I don't really see the point of the .357 Sig, but I do see the point and own .357 magnum revolvers. The Sig round is a marketing ploy to law enforcement, an answer to a question few people asked. The .40 S&W is fully capable of over 500 FPE, equaling the .357 Sig and with a bigger bullet. It does it with more bullet weight as a lower velocity, but ft lbs is ft lbs.

Either load is a great self defense round. If that's what you have, shoot it and like it. I got no screaming desire for a .357 Sig, though. My .38 and 9x19 pocket guns serve me in the CCW roll and if I fell I need to carry more, I have a .45ACP that I trust will do the job. I do have a need for a .357 magnum revolver. Anyone who enjoys the outdoors and wants an outdoor gun will be well served with a .357 magnum revolver.

So, if anything, I think the .357 Sig is over-rated. It can't do anything its parent cartridge, the .40 S&W can't do and with a bigger bullet. All in all, I'd as soon have a 9x19 for the more compact, controllable weapon for CCW. The .357 magnum is simply too useful NOT to own.

 

[1911Tuner]

.357 Magnum

MCGunner...Hear hear! If I were limited to one handgun, and it had to be a revolver...the.357 Magnum would be it, hands-down, and if I had to choose a barrel length, it would be 4 inches.

Ahhh! The verstatile .357 Magnum. Git some!

 

[Onmilo]

I knew my comment was going to begin a flurry of comments praising the 4" .357 magnum and whatever load somebody chooses to load into it.

I stick by my assessment though.
If you wished to be handicapped by your choice of a short barrel magnum that will not attain the true capabilities of the cartridge, and I don't care what the ammunition manufacturer states about the capabilities of his brand of magnums, that is by nature and by God your choice.
I once used to think the .30/06 was the be all to do all rifle caliber until I shot .300 Winchester and .375 H&H magnums.
Heck, Browning wants us all to believe the Winchester short Magnums and super short magnums are so wonderful that they chrome line the barrels to prove that the cartridges don't eat barrels like so many "Internet experts" claim that they do.
These cartridge foibles, and the money wasted on them, are one of the reasons FN pulled the plug on a great old American Company I am sure.
Pisspoor R&D.
We "internet experts" are the ones who spend our own hard earned money shooting these things and learning the truths that no one wants to accept.
It sucks when you have hard earned capital invested in a project that ends up coming up way short of the claims.
True for the Company and even more so for the consumer.
My first Magnum revolver was a 4" Model 28 that I shot more way more than 10,000 rounds through and most all of them were magnum level loads loaded in Magnum cases.
I know the guns and I know the cartridge extremely well and can tell you 140 grain jacketed bullets loaded warmer than the manuals say they should be will group at Match grade accuracy and won't eat the barrel throat like 125s.
170 grain jacketed bullets out of a six inch barrel will kill any game animal walking in North America and do it at 125 meters or better in truely skilled hands.
This is something the 4" gun just will not do as you cannot get the velocity to a level that you can with the six inch gun unless you take the chamber pressure to a level I consider dangerous.
As for me,
If I was limited to just one handgun and it was to be a revolver I would choose a five inch, or better yet, six inch .44 Magnum.

 

[1911Tuner]

re:

Onmilo makes good points...but it's not only/always about the game field or hunting. Sometimes portability and handiness enters the picture. The 4-inch revolver is a compromise. The 6-inch revolver is also a compromise. It depends on the intended use of gun and cartridge as to which you choose.
Hell...If you want all that the round is capable of for sporting use, use a 16-inch carbine. If you need more punch than the cartridge will deliver, step up to a .41 or .44 Magnum. The .357's versatility is what keeps it going, and the 4-inch revolver is the best compromise for yeoman service, rather than a specialized niche.

Finally...Power...energy...velocity...are all pretty much useless unless the bullet is placed well. If a 158-grain bullet at 1300 fps will do, the same bullet at 1200 would likely do just as well.

 

[MCgunner]

If I was limited to just one handgun and it was to be a revolver I would choose a five inch, or better yet, six inch .44 Magnum.

And give up all hope of carrying a handgun concealed for self defense. You can carry a K frame 4" IWB. There are better choices IMHO, but it can be done, I've done it.

If you're shooting brown bear or whatever at 125 yards, you need a rifle. .30-06? Nah, I prefer a .308. I don't need no stinkin' magnum. I have a 7mm Rem Mag that I never use anymore. Too much of everything for what I do. If I lived in Alaska I might use it and I'd probably own a .375, but what is there in Texas I need a belted magnum for?

I do quite a bit of handgun hunting. My specialized handgun for hunting is a 12" .30-30 with a 2x scope. I don't need no stinkin' .44 mag. ROFL!

 

[Cousin Mike]

And, my opinion is, there's more to the .357 Magnum than a 125 grain bullet at 1450 or whatever advertized factory velocity, but that's ALL there is to the .357 sig.

Well, at least you give the Sig round it's credit for being a good SD round... A very well-known member here once told me that the .357SIG was worthless for self defense... That person shall remain nameless.

I don't really see the point of the .357 Sig

12 rounds per reload of 125 grain .357" @ 1400 fps - available in a carry package - you don't see the point in that?

I know a lot of folks don't desire a .357 Sig - just like a lot of folks don't like or want a .40 S&W - but to say that there's no point to it seems reaching a little IMHO. I don't think it would have the success it does on the market if there were no reason for it. The .40 is bigger. The .357 moves faster. You make the same compromise (size vs. speed) when you choose any pistol round.

The one thing I hear time and time again in reference to the .357Sig vs. .40S&W debate is that the Sig round supposedly does better through glass and other barriers, and I've seen video that clearly shows a .357Sig round plowing through glass and plywood, and still getting a good 14"+ penetration in ballistic gel - with 3 layers of denim stacked on top for good measure.

The .357 Sig is not a hunting round. It's not supposed to be. So of course it's not as versatile as the .357 Magnum can be.

All I know is that if it weighs the same, is the same size, and flies at the same speed, it's going to produce very similar results. So it seems to me that is in and of itself the very reason for the 125 grain .357 Sig round. Having said that, I'm off to chase some figures on the Sig round, and maybe I'll get lucky and find some numbers for the 158 grain Sig round as well. I'll see if I can find that video (of the Sig round vs. glass, plywood, denim & gel) for you guys.

 

[Cousin Mike]

Here's the dirt...

I looked all this stuff up, just for you guys. Personally I resent having to do homework to prove my point (lol... ) but hell, who am I kidding? I didn't have anything else better to do, and I figured maybe if I go ahead and get all this stuff down, I'll have a nice little file saved for whenever I see the .357 Sig vs. [insert caliber here] threads.

Corbon Pow’R Ball:

357 MAG – 100 grain @ 1625 FPS / 586 FT. LBS (Barrel length of 4.6”)

357 SIG - 100 grain @ 1600 FPS / 568 FT. LBS (Barrel length of 4.0”)

And for good measure, since the .40 S&W was brought up in comparison:

40 S&W - 135 grain @ 1325 FPS / 526 FTLBS (Barrel length of 4.0”)


Corbon Traditional JHP:

357 MAG - 110 GR. JHP @ 1500FPS / 555FT. LBS (4.0” barrel)
357 MAG - 125 GR. JHP @ 1400FPS / 544FT. LBS (4.0” barrel)
357 MAG - 140 GR. JHP @ 1300FPS / 525FT. LBS (4.0” barrel)


357 SIG - 115 GR. JHP @ 1500FPS / 575FT. LBS (4.0” barrel)
357 SIG - 125 GR. JHP @ 1425FPS / 564FT. LBS (4.0” barrel)


Corbon DPX:

357 MAG - 125 GR. DPX @ 1300 FPS / 469 FT. LBS (4.0” barrel)

357 SIG - 125 GR. DPX @ 1250 FPS / 382 FT. LBS (4.0” barrel)


Remington:

357 MAG – 125GR (Golden Saber, JHP) @ 1220 FPS / 413 FT. LBS (4.0” barrel)
357 MAG – 125GR (UMC, JSP) @ 1450 FPS / 583 FT. LBS (4.0” barrel)
357 MAG – 125GR (Express, SJHP) @ 1450 FPS / 583 FT. LBS (4.0” barrel)

357 SIG – 125GR (Express JHP) @ 1350 FPS / 506 FT. LBS (4.0” barrel)
357 SIG – 125GR (UMC JHP) @ 1350 FPS / 506 FT. LBS (4.0” barrel)

Winchester:

357 MAG - 125 gr. Super-X JHP @ 1450 FPS / 583 FT. LBS (no barrel length given)
357 MAG - 110 gr. USA JHP @ 1295 FPS / 410 FT. LBS (no barrel length given)
357 MAG - 145 gr. Silvertip JHP @ 1290 FPS / 535 FT. LBS (4.0” barrel)
357 MAG - 125 gr. WinClean JSP @ 1370 FPS / 521 FT. LBS (4.0” barrel)


357 SIG - 125 gr. USA JHP - @ 1350 FPS / 506 FT. LBS (4.0” barrel)
357 SIG – 125 gr. Ranger-T JHP @ 1350 FPS / 506 FT. LBS (4.0” barrel)
357 SIG – 100 gr. Ranger Frangible @ 1490 FPS / 493 FT. LBS (4.0” barrel)
357 SIG – 125 gr. WinClean Flat-nose @ 1350 FPS / 506 FT. LBS (4.0” barrel)

Speer (Gold Dot):

357 SIG – 125 GR. GDHP @ 1375 FPS / 525 FT. LBS (4.0” barrel)

357 MAG – 125 GR. GDHP @ 1450 FPS / 584 FT. LBS (4.0” barrel)
357 MAG – 158 GR. GDHP @ 1235 FPS / 535 FT. LBS (4.0” barrel)
357 MAG – 170 GR. GDHP @ 1180 / 526 FT. LBS (4.0” barrel)

Hornady:

357 SIG – 124 GR. XTP/JHP @ 1350 FPS / 502 FT. LBS (4.0” barrel)
357 SIG – 147 GR. XTP/JHP @ 1225 FPS / 490 FT. LBS (4.0” barrel)

357 MAG – 125 GR. XTP/HP @ 1500 FPS / 624 FT. LBS (8.0” barrel)
357 MAG – 140 GR. XTP/HP @ 1350 FPS / 566 FT. LBS (8.0” barrel)
357 MAG – 158 GR. XTP/HP @ 1250 FPS / 548 FT. LBS (8.0” barrel)

Notice the huge difference in barrel lengths.

That’s about all I was willing to look up at the moment, but I’ve learned a little bit looking all this stuff up… What I’ve learned is that there really doesn’t seem to be a huge difference between the 2 loads in any SD/carry application you’re likely to be carrying. That, and .357 Sig doesn’t get the respect it would seem it deserves.

 

[1911Tuner]

.357 Mag/Sig

Probably a lot like the comparison between the .30-06 Springfield and the .308 Winchester rounds. In the "standard" bullet weight range, the difference is pretty negligible. (150 and 165) The old '06 comes into its own with bullets of 180 grains and over.

 

[Greg8098]

Thank you Cousin Mike!!!

I know that the 357 sig is nowhere as versatile as the .357 magnum :banghead: , only a total noob would think that . I just remember hearing that the magnum round chronoed from a 4 inch tube would yield less than 1450, more around 1350 - 1375. I also know that this is not the magnum's full potential, heck you can overpressure anything to it's full potential . I just needed to know if anybody ever chronographed 357 magnum rounds from a 4 inch revolver. I am talking about the ammo that the average Joe could go to the local Wal-Mart and get, not the handloads and hunting loads :banghead: !!!

 

[Greg8098]

Also when the 10mm was reduced in length, I wish the 357 sig would have been the original design instead of the .40 inch compromise !!!

 

[357wheelgunner]

Velocity and bullet weight are one thing, but you guys are missing an important advantage of the revolver: You can have any PROFILE bullet you want. That means that those old magical federal 125gr. JHPs that gave the .357 its name, with their wide evil looking hollow point, don't have to worry about feeding issues as you slide them into empty cylinders. You can't get just any profile bullet to feed into a semi auto, but the wheelgun works all 6 times with whatever ammo you put in, be it .38 spl lead round nose, the venerable "FBI load" 158 gr. LHP+P .38, a .357 125gr JHP, or a buffalo boar critter stopper.

 

[Cousin Mike]

Velocity and bullet weight are one thing, but you guys are missing an important advantage of the revolver: You can have any PROFILE bullet you want. That means that those old magical federal 125gr. JHPs that gave the .357 its name, with their wide evil looking hollow point, don't have to worry about feeding issues as you slide them into empty cylinders.

Not trying to be funny, but I'm thinking apples and oranges here. You are right though, the one thing I never thought of when selecting a weapon for concealed carry or home defense was bullet profile.

On the other hand, feeding issues: Have you ever seen a .357Sig round, or a pistol chambered in .357 Sig? There ARE NO feeding issues.. It's a 9mm bullet being pushed into a 10mm chamber. My .357 Sig is the only pistol I have where you can slowly and gently ride the slide forward, and the round will still chamber just as smoothly as ever.

Before looking up that info, I was ready to concede that the Sig round couldn't touch the Magnum round... Now I'm not so sure. From what I'm seeing, in the classic 125gr. load or any loads of similar weight - the difference in performance is minimal at best. All things being equal, it seems to depend on who's loading the ammunition. Notice above:

Corbon DPX, .357 Magnum smoked the .357 Sig.

But if you look at the figures for the Corbon Traditional JHP, the Sig round smoked the Magnum round, averaging about 570 to the Magnums 540 or so FPE. Most others stayed close to even... at around 500 FPE - while the Magnum load can vary from barely 400 to over 600 FPE depending on make, model, and barrel length. The only round that broke 600 FPE was the .357 Magnum from an 8" barrel. From a 4" barrel, those numbers would be just like the rest.. too close to see any real difference.

I think 1911Tuner said it best... In the common weights, it seems the difference is pretty negligable. In the heavier hunting loads, the .357 comes into it's own.

For 2-legged animals, either one works just fine.

If only I could find that damn video... :banghead:

 

[GunNut]

Results are what counts and the .357mag has a long history of being a great fight stopper.

IMHO, the .357sig will have to prove it's self for many years to take the title away from the .357mag.

Steve

 

[Cousin Mike]

To be honest, I hope the .357Sig never does take the title away... I like carrying the underdog round... And I like to carry the champion as well.

I'd just be happy if people recognized the Sig round for what it is.

.357 in an autoloader... that's all it is, that's all it's supposed to be.

 

[Otherguy Overby]

Did someone mention 9x23?

How about a bottom feeder with 18 or 19 rounds of 9mm 125 grain soft points at 1450+ fps? It was originally somewhat of a wildcat using .223 brass trimmed to 23 mm and a 9mm bullet inserted. It runs at rifle pressures.

The only real drawback is it's really LOUD. How can you shoot it with your index fingers in your ears? It's like a short barreled AR for LOUD. Wanna load one up more? Clark has...

The biggest problem with my 1911 9x23 is getting it back from anyone who's had a chance to shoot it.

Regardless, the .357 really is more versatile cartridge.

 

[miko]

First, 100 fps is a marginal difference.

15% more energy to be precise. Quite a margin.
A realistic 1500 fps (150 fps difference) gives you an edge in energy of 25%.

miko