What's the point of .357 Sig?

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

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...

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

Click to expand...

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+.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Click to expand...

Very close to the truth.

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.

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.

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.

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

Click to expand...

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.

"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.

I think he meant the "same" lower capacity of the .40.

Yep. Same size gun, you will have less .40/.357 SIG rounds than 9mm

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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."

agreed.

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