I like the .357Sig for it's shooting qualities. It has less recoil, muzzle flip, & torque than my .40 barrel in my P229. It is WAY more accurate than .40. My P229 hold 12+1 rounds of powerful ammo. That's like carrying 2 .357 mag revovlers.
I just may need to shoot out of my car or into a car. Last time I looked, parking lots are plum full of 'em.
The agencies using .357 Sigs like them. The NCHP switched guns, but not caliber. They had a chance to switch to a different round, but they kept the .357Sig. I believe some agencies are switching to 9mm or .45acp from .40. Is it a trend? Too early to tell.
http://www.miragetechnologies.net/images/Video/SPEER Gold Dot 357 SIG.wmv
Both quotes are from Ammolab- David DiFabio
"1. The .357 Magnum was developed as a 6" barreled loading and was issued for many years as such until adopted by the various highway patrols and offered with the then "compact" 4" barrel. At 6" velocities the sp loadings work very well and provide identical wound profiles to the .30 carbine.
2. The .357 and the .45 are when loaded with premium bullets identical in wounding capabilities within the first 25 yards after 25+ the .357 is superior.
3. The .357 Magnum as a police issue weapon did not and does not have the reputation that the gunrags and those who have made generous profits from stating it does would like you to believe. Texas DPS for example wrote in the first transitional documents that the magnum was not performing as well as they would like and noted an decrease in shots fired per incapacitation with the P220 .45 pistols of 8%. The tide turned when the 229 was issued with the .357 Sig and the ratio dropped another 5%.
4. Intermixing the statements made with regard to the "increased power" of +P, +P+, and other such foolishness e.g. "velocity is not a factor with service caliber handgun cartridges" and the capabilities of a true magnum class handgun cartridge is not an accurate assumption.
5. The change in police issue use from magnum cartridges to service caliber auto pistol cartridges was due to improved ergonomics, capacity, increased hit potential and increased controllability. Issue weapons must meet the needs of all and ignore the needs and capability's of the few, few can truly shoot a magnum cartridge as effectively as a service caliber pistol .
6. Given the capability and the proper design/application of the bullet to the velocity one should prudence dictates always choose the more powerful loading provided that the terminal performance of the bullet is not infringed upon or the capability of the shooter to engage is not compromised."
http://www.warriortalk.com/showthre...highlight=texas
"I had heard this same question/statement (especially from Delaware State PD Troopers recently) that we decided to test the notion using actual automotive body parts with the gracious help of J&G Automotive.
The test guns used were the Glock G31, Glock G22, and Glock G17.
Test ammo used was Speer Gold Dot as follows:
Load 1: 9mm 124gr+P Lot# 28904
Load 2:.40S&W 180gr Lot# B28G64
Load 3: .357 Sig 125gr Lot # J02G34
We tested as follows:
Test Panel #1
1999 Ford Taurus Hood (w car attached)
Distance to target: 3 yards
Angle to target: Approx 30 degrees (estimated height for a 5'10" male to be standing in front of the car firing at it aiming at the rear 1/3)
Result:
Load 1: Semi-round crater/hole w/partial penetration and impact with the windshield in the lower 1/4 of the glass. RW=114grs
Load 2: Oblong crater w/full penetration through the hood and interestingly enough we found a small perfectly circular metal disc matching the hood material and color about 12" from the point where the round struck the engine. RW=146grs
Load 3: Almost circular crater/hole just slightly larger then 9mm, no metal disc, and a slightly deformed bullet. RW=118grs
Test Panel (s) 2:
1992, Chevrolet C1500, 1991 C2500, and 1996 C1500 windshields in perfect condition (the model years do not match but they were free and it was the best we could come up with).
Fired at directly in front of the front bumper of the truck(s) at 3 yards distance to the hood using the steering wheel as the aiming point on each one.
Result:
Load 1: complete penetration with a slightly oblong entry hole. RW= 98grs
Load 2: complete penetration with a virtually circular hole. RW= 134grs
Load 3: complete penetration with a slightly oblong entry hole. RW= 107grs
Test Panel 3:
1998 Chevrolet Suburban C2500 one piece fold down rear lift gate (split type with upper glass window and one opening handle).
Distance to target 3 yards.
Aiming point upper 1/3 of the lift gate but all impacts occurred 4-6” below the top edge.
Result:
Load 1: Complete penetration with a torn/deformed bullet stopped within the outer vinyl layer of the rear (3rd) seat. RW=112grs
Load 2: complete penetration with a non-expanded but heavily deformed bullet stopped by the center layer of the 2nd (middle) seat. RW=137grs
Load 3: Complete penetration with a moderately deformed bullet lodged in the center console of the front row seats (driver and passenger). The bullet appears to have collapsed in on itself in effect becoming an fmj flat nosed projectile. RW= 116grs
We did not have the ability due to scheduling constraints and sheer luck in getting the owners to agree to do the tests on what were otherwise good “salvage” parts to prepare and bring calibrated ordnance gelatin to capture the bullets in after they passed through the barriers so I cannot comment as to the penetration/expansion/performance in tissue stimulant."
http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-b...t=000368#000000