ROAshooter
member
One only has to read past postings to see the many times 355sig has pissed people off
The Difference between 357 Mag and 357 sig?
- Thread starter Columbus Archer
- Start date
- Status
Well believe it or not more cops still use the 9mm than any other caliber. That is due to the larger agencies like NYPD, LAPD, CPD. still issuing it. Trends change and percieved needs. Also ammo has improved. The ammo situation 10 years ago is not what it is today. The 9mm has benefited quite a bit from recent changes in bullet construction. I dropped the 357 sig when I learned about the Ranger +p+ 127 grain. The move is also not towards the 357 sig but rather to the 40sw. Its the compromise cartridge. 45 fans can live with it because it starts with .4 while 9mm fans get to keep their guns.
Pat
Pat
Devonai
Member
Yeah, it's a pistol round!
I'd rather have my Remington 870 or my Garand out there.I have owned a S&W 1006, but it only carried 9+1 rounds and it was a good deal heavier than my Glock 22. I have owned a USP .45 but it only carried 12+1 rounds. The Glock 22 gives me 18 rounds on my primary mag (thanks to a +2 baseplate) and 15 rounds for each spare mag, two more if I decide to order more +2 baseplates. That kind of firepower in .40 is great, and I like the slight increase in power levels of the Speer Gold Dot 125-grain .357 Sig (over the Speer GD 165-grain .40) gives me.
I'm on my own out there, and with the occasional trespasser or thief I know quite well that the police response time is approximately 15 minutes. Capacity is important to me.
Graystar
Member
I agree. In fact my own personal defense gun is 9mm. And I’m not actually defending the 357SIG. I’m just saying that one needs to consider the design goal of a round when performing an evaluation.
Isn’t that Ranger ammo available only to law enforcement?
Ranger is legal to own and you can buy it from sources on the internet. Heck I would get it for you if you lived near by. There are other good choices like the HST as well. The 357 sig was developed to copy the ballistics of the 125 grain 357 mag when fired from a 3 to 4 inch barrel. That it does.
Pat
Pat
Devonai
Member
Heh, such a need exists only in our minds, not theirs. I'm just happy to have more than a S&W model 10.
Sergeant Sabre
Member
Graystar said:
They don't carry hollow point ammunition?
Maybe not where you live. I can't think of an agency that doesn't carry hollow points.
coylh
Member
I can get a Sig 229 in 357sig.
The fundamental difference IMO is bullet weight. The .357 Sig is limited to lighter bullets. While 125 grain bullets might produce similar velocities in the two cartridges, the .357 Magnum wins at bullet weights greater than this.
The .357 Magnum can spit out 200 grain bullets approaching 1,200 feet per second. The .357 Sig doesn't even have bullets close to this weight.
The .357 Magnum can spit out 200 grain bullets approaching 1,200 feet per second. The .357 Sig doesn't even have bullets close to this weight.
357sig vs 9mm
after reading the threads from both persons, i'll not argue the useful pro and cons of either, my only comment is has anyone made a comment about the wayyy big difference in the rounds if used for sd and having to fire in the dark? WOW ,now thats a heck of a difference, that 357 sig will not only blind u at night but damn near deafen u also for several moments, soooo, if fired at the bg, better make real sure you burn him good with the first shot, u wont be seeing or hearing him for a few, thats main reason i hate ported pistols, that and the darn extra work cleaning and how the ported barrrel flash hides the front sight with soot!
after reading the threads from both persons, i'll not argue the useful pro and cons of either, my only comment is has anyone made a comment about the wayyy big difference in the rounds if used for sd and having to fire in the dark? WOW ,now thats a heck of a difference, that 357 sig will not only blind u at night but damn near deafen u also for several moments, soooo, if fired at the bg, better make real sure you burn him good with the first shot, u wont be seeing or hearing him for a few, thats main reason i hate ported pistols, that and the darn extra work cleaning and how the ported barrrel flash hides the front sight with soot!
DonGlock26
Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2003
- Messages
- 259
I find the .357Sig to recoil less(torque) less than .40 in my P229. It is also much more accurate compared to the .40. I like it with a bonded bullet.
The 357 SIG was designed to duplicate the ballistics of a 125 grain 357 magnum defensive load and shoot from a 9mm/40cal sized frame. It does that pretty well. It's performance has tested to be about the same as a 357 magnum from a 3" to 4" bbl. Basing judgement on what the design goal was then it is a success. The 357 magnum offers much more variety of bullet weights and is more versatile ballistically. If I had to choose only one for all of life's handgun applications then the 357 magnum would be my choice.
The design goal was for SIGArms to reclaim the LE market share in lost to Glock when they were slow in bringing out a .40 S&W. I'd say it missed its goal by rather a large margin--both in terms of calibre (the .40 S&W far outstrips the 357 SIG in LE sales) and weapon sales (the Glock signficantly outsells SIG in LE). Using your criteria of "design goal," the 357 SIG has been a miserable failure (and I'm not even certain of its long-term viability).
Brad Johnson
Member
Wow, such vitriol and ascetic barbs over what is essentially a non-issue.
To answer the original question...
The .357 Smith & Wesson Magnum was designed as a rimmed, straight-walled revolver cartridge. Original factory loadings were brutal. Very few factory loadings today duplicate the performance of these early offerings. The case design was simple - a straight tube with a rim at one end to hold it in the cylinder. Very utilitarian.
The .357 Sig was designed as a semi-auto cartridge. A "rimless" desgin, it began as an experiment to duplicate the terminal ballistics of the most-used (and well respected) 125 grain .357 mag revolver loads in a cartridge that could be used in a semi-auto. Originally using necked-down .40 S&W cases, designers were able to duplicate the 125gr .357 Mag performance in a cartridge that would fit in existing semi-auto handguns designed around .40/.9mm-length cartridges. (Note-the .357 Sig cases are now specifically designed to handle the higher chamber pressures and are drawn to difference specs than the .40 S&W)
The .357 Sig has suffered a fate similar to that of the 10mm. Original .357 Sig loads were impressive. However, LE agencies found their officers suffering from "don't wanna shoot it" problems due to the increase recoil and muzzle blast. As a result many factory .357 Sig loads were noticeably detuned to offer the shooters a more palatable combination. Unless original-spec cartridges are used, .357 Sig now offers no real ballistic advantages over other LE rounds in either .40 S&W, 10mm, or +P+ 9mm chamberings.
One inherent positive of the .357 Sig is the bottleneck case design. This design tends to be more forgiving of deficiencies in magazine and feedramp design. As a result it seems to suffer fewer feeding problems than similar straight-walled chamberings. The downside is that the shouldered design makes handloading the round a more exacting process, as the round headspaces on the shoulder and not the case mouth.
Brad
To answer the original question...
The .357 Smith & Wesson Magnum was designed as a rimmed, straight-walled revolver cartridge. Original factory loadings were brutal. Very few factory loadings today duplicate the performance of these early offerings. The case design was simple - a straight tube with a rim at one end to hold it in the cylinder. Very utilitarian.
The .357 Sig was designed as a semi-auto cartridge. A "rimless" desgin, it began as an experiment to duplicate the terminal ballistics of the most-used (and well respected) 125 grain .357 mag revolver loads in a cartridge that could be used in a semi-auto. Originally using necked-down .40 S&W cases, designers were able to duplicate the 125gr .357 Mag performance in a cartridge that would fit in existing semi-auto handguns designed around .40/.9mm-length cartridges. (Note-the .357 Sig cases are now specifically designed to handle the higher chamber pressures and are drawn to difference specs than the .40 S&W)
The .357 Sig has suffered a fate similar to that of the 10mm. Original .357 Sig loads were impressive. However, LE agencies found their officers suffering from "don't wanna shoot it" problems due to the increase recoil and muzzle blast. As a result many factory .357 Sig loads were noticeably detuned to offer the shooters a more palatable combination. Unless original-spec cartridges are used, .357 Sig now offers no real ballistic advantages over other LE rounds in either .40 S&W, 10mm, or +P+ 9mm chamberings.
One inherent positive of the .357 Sig is the bottleneck case design. This design tends to be more forgiving of deficiencies in magazine and feedramp design. As a result it seems to suffer fewer feeding problems than similar straight-walled chamberings. The downside is that the shouldered design makes handloading the round a more exacting process, as the round headspaces on the shoulder and not the case mouth.
Brad
MCgunner
Member
Hey, if you're sold on the Sig round, GREAT. It's effective as about any major caliber, of course. I'm not saying it's junk, worthless, etc. I'm just saying it sold on its name, not any significant performance improvement that other calibers didn't already offer. The last significant improvement in PDW calibers IMHO was the 10mm.
I carry the 9 because it's an effective major caliber that is chambered in some tiny guns which is what I carry for CCW, being just an armed civilian, not a security guard or LEO or anything. You can get the Sig in similar sized guns, there are barrel conversions out there for the Kel Tec and I assume the Glock 27, but I'll stick with the 9. I never liked the .40 in such small guns because they're pretty rough on a small action, but if the gun is designed for it, that might just be a paranoia of mine. Still, I'll take the extra round of my 9 over a forty in a small weapon, especially considering a box of practice ammo is 5.97 at Walmart here and I can't even justify reloading the caliber anymore at those prices.
No reason to get worked up over the debate. It has been interesting to see why some like the round. I still think it's redundant and not necessary and no real improvement in the world of sidearms, but it's made Sig a lot of money, so I can't say it's worthless. LOL
I carry the 9 because it's an effective major caliber that is chambered in some tiny guns which is what I carry for CCW, being just an armed civilian, not a security guard or LEO or anything. You can get the Sig in similar sized guns, there are barrel conversions out there for the Kel Tec and I assume the Glock 27, but I'll stick with the 9. I never liked the .40 in such small guns because they're pretty rough on a small action, but if the gun is designed for it, that might just be a paranoia of mine. Still, I'll take the extra round of my 9 over a forty in a small weapon, especially considering a box of practice ammo is 5.97 at Walmart here and I can't even justify reloading the caliber anymore at those prices.
No reason to get worked up over the debate. It has been interesting to see why some like the round. I still think it's redundant and not necessary and no real improvement in the world of sidearms, but it's made Sig a lot of money, so I can't say it's worthless. LOL
"Using your criteria of "design goal," the 357 SIG has been a miserable failure (and I'm not even certain of its long-term viability)."
R e a d S l o w e r O n e M o r e T i m e
I'm talking about the ballistic engineering desgin goal and nothing more. The engineers pretty much accomplished what they set out to do. Read the original post again and try to find the topic of discussion. You can do it!
R e a d S l o w e r O n e M o r e T i m e
I'm talking about the ballistic engineering desgin goal and nothing more. The engineers pretty much accomplished what they set out to do. Read the original post again and try to find the topic of discussion. You can do it!
Brad -
Wow, such misinformation over what is essentially a non-issue.
Actually, today's standard factory loading are as hot (or hotter) than the original Federal offerings. The 357 SIG has NOT "suffered a fate similar to that of the 10mm" as you allege (or the .357 Magnum). To be honest the 357 SIG offers no ballistic adavantage over any 9x19 current generation, premium JHP--standard, +P or +P+. Any advantages the bottle-neck case design offers is more theoretical than practical.
In fact, the tapered design of the 9x19 is probably better (again theoretically) than the bottle-neck of the 357 SIG. The bottle-neck design of the 357 SIG comes with its own set of reliability problems including a inherent tendency to nose-dive (particularly once your magazine springs start to weaken a little or the magazine gets a little dirty). It also as issues with case neck strength.
medmo -
B U T that's not what you said, was it?
--Or was I supposed to slow way down and read your mind?
At least, I didn't see anything about "engineering desgin [sic] goal" in your first post. The goal was was SIGArms to regain LE market share it lost to Glock--it failed.
Wow, such misinformation over what is essentially a non-issue.
Actually, today's standard factory loading are as hot (or hotter) than the original Federal offerings. The 357 SIG has NOT "suffered a fate similar to that of the 10mm" as you allege (or the .357 Magnum). To be honest the 357 SIG offers no ballistic adavantage over any 9x19 current generation, premium JHP--standard, +P or +P+. Any advantages the bottle-neck case design offers is more theoretical than practical.
In fact, the tapered design of the 9x19 is probably better (again theoretically) than the bottle-neck of the 357 SIG. The bottle-neck design of the 357 SIG comes with its own set of reliability problems including a inherent tendency to nose-dive (particularly once your magazine springs start to weaken a little or the magazine gets a little dirty). It also as issues with case neck strength.
medmo -
B U T that's not what you said, was it?
--Or was I supposed to slow way down and read your mind?
At least, I didn't see anything about "engineering desgin [sic] goal" in your first post. The goal was was SIGArms to regain LE market share it lost to Glock--it failed.
- Status
