Maybe you should be careful with what you wish for, because the video Chris Baker did about .357 SIG pretty much drove the last nail into its coffin.
I saw that video too and it practically killed what remaining interest I had in it as well with what I'd read about it being "flat shooting" for longer distances. I mean, even if the bullets didn't expand at 100 yards, had they had a flatter trajectory, .357 Sig would still have
something going for it. About the only thing is has now is a spare barrel for a .40 pistol is not difficult to get in the event like we're in today where .357 Sig ammo is available, but if you reload like I do, that's a lame reason to get it considering what the cost and availability of the ammo is during normal times.
Years ago (2014) when I was getting into guns and researching and trying to discover things on my own, I was big on .357 Sig because it was virtually identical to .357 Mag w/ 125gr bullets. Eventually I settled on .40 because it's what police used, so I figure ammo would always be around and if I wanted to convert to .357 Sig later I could. Then I eventually asked myself what .357 Sig did that was different than .40, 9, 10, .45, etc. and realized it didn't do much more that justified the ammo cost or the extra steps reloading the ammo.
Bottlenecks have their strengths and weaknesses and I've concluded that, for pistols, a .32 caliber is the best caliber for bottlenecking and anything larger or smaller doesn't have much merit. The various .22 bottlenecks (.22 TCM, 5.7, .22 Jet) they may have velocity, but they don't have power and at distance I question their flat trajectory and accuracy in a breeze, not too mention case life for reloading. Anything above .32 and it's either overkill or it's .357 Sig and doesn't offer enough more in pros compared to its cons.
The 7.62x25 and .32 NAA are totally different in you get enough pros that they outweigh the cons of the other bottleneck calibers, but also straight wall calibers, so they fit right into the Goldilocks zone. 7.62x25 has enough velocity to defeat soft armor like the .22's can, but are large enough bullets they have good power and effect on target in full size pistols, while the .32 NAA offers velocity out of micro pistols to expand a bullet and penetrate while also being able to fit in medium sized pistols like the Beretta 81 or PPK and get even greater ballistic advantage from the longer barrel.
Like, for reloading, I could understand disinterest in 7.62x25 given the difficulty of finding brass, but .32 NAA can be formed from .380 brass no problem. The only issue with .32 NAA besides lack of guns (at least converting a .32 ACP barrel to .32 NAA isn't too difficult) currently is die sets are made on a custom basis and cost $200 from Lee unless you can organize a group buy, but good luck finding enough people willing to pitch in.
The other thing about .32 NAA is in a gun like the LCP, I'd shoot less than 25 rds a month because it's not a gun I can shoot more than that each range session, but also I don't feel I need to shoot a little LCP further than 10-12 yards that much to stay fairly proficient. The excuse I'll see people say about .380 vs .32 NAA is the .380 ammo is so much less and it allows them to shoot more, not too mention more available. For me, I can afford to pay $200 a year in ammo for a gun that I'm likely to carry with me almost every day.
The availability issue is valid.
Sorry this went on so long.
