torn between 357 sig and 9MM

[chutestrate]

I'm taking a hard look at my calibers and wonder if the 357 sig has a place. I seem to own a weapon for all of the common caibers and reload for them. I was drawn to the 357 sig because if the power it offered but it isn't something i reload for. I end up carrying a 9mm instead of the 357. The specialty companies offer 9mm with impressive ballistics. Do I keep it? Do I trade into a nice high end 9?

I bought it for carry, but my kahr p9 fits that role. I have other calibers that serve as woods guns and my range fun time is kept to more affordable calibers.

Seems like i answered my own question,

 

[Owen]

.357 SIG is a nice cartridge, but is also very expensive. If you intend to shoot the gun often, or if you are price sensitive about ammo (and who isn't these days?) i'd go for the 9mm.

If you're reloading for it, ammo prices should be about the same as 9mm. maybe a penny or two more for each round due to more powder. On the other hand (and this is conjecture) the brass won't last as long because it's bottlenecked.

 

[jem375]

Before I would buy a 357 Sig I would look at a 10MM which is the equivalent of a 357 Magnum approximately.

 

[ClemY]

Before I bought the. 357 SIG I would consider if it will still be around in 20 years.

 

[Usmc-1]

Choose an auto where you can exchange barrels like the Sig 250 (I am not campaigning the 250 just saying) , that way you wont be torn!

 

[Smaug]

Get rid of it.

Keep your 9mm. 9mm is easy to load for, and easier to afford practice, even if you don't reload for it.

As a fellow reloader, I would never even consider getting a handgun chambered for a bottleneck cartridge.

I don't think you'll get enough for it to buy another gun; no one wants them.

If you decide to get another handgun in another caliber, go for .45 ACP. It is a great cartridge to reload for. Being low pressure, the brass lasts forever. The cases are easy to handle, and there's room for powder without worry of compressing it, as with 9mm.

I reload for .45 for around the same cost as shooting the bulk factory 9mm, and I'm pretty happy about it. .44 Magnum and .357 Magnum are also great cartridges to reload for. No need to beat yourself up with the heavy loads, and you can still use the Magnum cases for lighter loads.

 

[gym]

9mm the 357, is going to cost twice as much to shoot and who knows the availability as time goes on

 

[Owen]

gym, he reloads, the cost difference between 9mm and .357 SIG when reloading is going to be negligible, maybe a penny a round for more propellent.

 

[redbullitt]

For me it would depend on what I own already and a bit of what I like. I think the 357 sig would make a fantastic carry weapon, especially since you have it already lol. How does it run? Do you like the way it shoots/recoils etc? Is it easy for you to carry?

Wanting one or liking it is enough justification to hang on to it (provided you can swing the cost comfortably)!

That said, either weapon will do just fine IMHO. If you reload for both, then go with the one you like. If you do not load for both, and cost is a consideration, I would lean to the 9mm.

 

[Kleanbore]

The first question is "why?". What is the need? A civilian who is not sworn to enforce the law has not need to shoot through plate glass and little if any need to shoot through car bodies.

The second question is "why not?". Three things to consider other than cost and ammunition availability:

• Penetration trhough walls, etc., and attendant danger to third parties;
• adverse effects of greater recoil on getting multiple shots on target very quickly; and
• the issue of "set back" and higher pressure whan rounds are chambered repeatedly.

I would choose the 9MM.

 

[X-Rap]

Increased performance, compatibility with 40 & 9mm platforms if barrels are available. Increased reliability with the case shape. Whats not to like. I reload for mine and don't shoot it as often as the 9 but I don't think it will be going away anytime soon.

 

[ny32182]

I have a G32, these days mostly just to have a gun in the caliber. I don't regret purchasing it, and I carry it from time to time.

However, the downsides to 357sig are significant if you plan to shoot a lot of it, whether or not you are reloading. If you are not, cost is high; if you are, finding your brass among all those 9s and 40s, and lubing the cases will both be relative PITA. 9 would be a much better high volume caliber.

 

[clem]

Choose an auto where you can exchange barrels like the Sig 250 (I am not campaigning the 250 just saying) , that way you wont be torn!

Good idea. I have a Sig P-229 in .357 sig. I have the barrels for 9MM & .40 cal.
It is a great set up.

 

[19-3Ben]

Choose an auto where you can exchange barrels like the Sig 250 (I am not campaigning the 250 just saying) , that way you wont be torn!

Yup. Exactly. Get something like a Glock 22 where you can swap in a .357sig conversion barrel and even use the same .40cal magazines. That way you can swap back and forth.

 

[MDW GUNS]

To reload the .357 SIG is hardly more expensive then a 9mm.
For powder I use WIN 231 for both calibers.
9mm gets 4.9 gr and .357 SIG gets 6 gr.
On the bullets two example:
Magtech Bullets 9mm (355 Diameter) 115 Grain Full Metal Jacket $53.99 per 500 for the 9mm.
For the .357 SIG I use for years now Hornady Action Pistol (HAP) Bullets 9mm (356 Diameter) 125 Grain $68.99.
The primer is the same.
Over all you are talking about $0.03 on the bullet difference and not even a cent on the powder.
So the difference is less then a nickel.
Of cause you can push these numbers either way.
The question here is rather when you CCW what is the better caliber for you.
The know it all will tell you it's all about shot placement. Well if that is so simple, why don't you use a .22 LR or Mag??

 

[Kleanbore]

MDW GUNS: The know it all will tell you it's all about shot placement. Well if that is so simple, why don't you use a .22 LR or Mag??

Penetration, obviously.

It's all about shot placement and penetration.

Regarding the former, it has to do with where one hits the target and at what angle and frankly, how many times. In the heat of an attack that develops very, very quickly, that has a lot more with speed--speed of the draw and rapidity of controlled firing-- than accuracy of the kind one sees at the range.

In regard to penetration, one needs to have enough, but too much won't help and creates an undue liability, and too much power can get in the way of shot placement as discussed above. All of the common LEO loads will do the trick if you do your part. Many are comfortable with carrying a .380.

See this for an eyeopening discussion on the subject.

 

[Girodin]

To reload the .357 SIG is hardly more expensive then a 9mm.
For powder I use WIN 231 for both calibers.
9mm gets 4.9 gr and .357 SIG gets 6 gr.
On the bullets two example:
Magtech Bullets 9mm (355 Diameter) 115 Grain Full Metal Jacket $53.99 per 500 for the 9mm.
For the .357 SIG I use for years now Hornady Action Pistol (HAP) Bullets 9mm (356 Diameter) 125 Grain $68.99.
The primer is the same.
Over all you are talking about $0.03 on the bullet difference and not even a cent on the powder.

What about brass? Is the 9mm brass not cheaper in the first place and or easier to come by? When I go shoot with friends I can pick up a lot of 9mm brass because many of them shoot 9mm. If I were picking up 357 sig it would only be my own. I know it can be re-used and the cost will not be that significant over a number of loadings but you've failed to account for it in any way. What ever you figure it is there is some cost to it and brass is less readily available.

My humble opinion is there is not enough performance difference to warrant switching to a .357 sig.

 

[MrWesson]

I reload and i choose 9mm because

Cheaper brass
less powder for plinking loads
.357sig bottlenecked cartridge is a pain in the
If I dont want to reload 9mm is everywhere and cheap

9mm is a great cartridge and If I wanted more I would go with .40.

 

[MidwestRookie]

this right here is the only .357 i'd ever own...and I definitely want one!

 

[VA27]

If Kahr made a PM-sized gun in .357SIG (or 45GAP) I'd have one (or both). As it stands, I have no use for the SIG round in a service sized gun. Keep the 9 and look for something in a nice 10mm or a 'real' 357 mag revolver.

 

[NMGonzo]

9mm.

Practice like you mean it.

 

[chutestrate]

Well I found a Glock 17 RTL with fiber optic sights. I like it so the .357 sig has to go. Any idea what market value would be?

It's an HK P2000, LEM trigger with 200 rds. through it. I have the box, grips etc. that comes with it new, standard sights. I found some entries on gunsamerica.com

 

[Zundfolge]

A civilian who is not sworn to enforce the law has not need to shoot through plate glass and little if any need to shoot through car bodies.

Sorry but this is a pet peeve of mine. EVERYONE who is "sworn to enforce the law" since June 18, 1878 in the United States is by law a civilian.


Anyway, .357sig is a nifty caliber and pretty flat shooting (which frankly is its REAL advantage). Since the OP reloads the only reason NOT to get .357sig (expensive, hard to find ammo) is pretty much out the window.

Don't let "need" get in the way of "want" ... you have nothing to justify to anyone.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Zundfolge: EVERYONE who is "sworn to enforce the law" since June 18, 1878 in the United States is by law a civilian.

That's an interesting interpretation of a law that prohibits the Army from enforcing civilian laws except under Presidential order. Here on THR, and on our sister site The Firing Line, for that matter, our common usage is this dictionary definition: "....any person not an active member of the armed forces or of an official force having police power", even though legal definitions vary widely. So, when we say "civilian", we mean someone other than a sworn officer or a military person. You will find that to be mostly true throughout the literature.

Anyway, .357sig is a nifty caliber and pretty flat shooting (which frankly is its REAL advantage).

That, and penetration, when one needs either one. Both probably apply mostly to hunting and certain law enforcement applications. Most SD applications do not require really flat shooting handguns. Put another way, most common LEO loads are quite adequate in that regard.

Since the OP reloads the only reason NOT to get .357sig (expensive, hard to find ammo) is pretty much out the window.

The only reason? I don't think so. I considered getting a .357 SIG some years ago when it was about the only ammo on the shelves, but I did not, for several reasons:

1. The risk of greater penetration than the 9MM;
2. greater recoil (at the time, that was a matter of comfort; I had not yet taken any training that involved getting mutiple hits onto mutiple targets in an extremely short time interval);
3. I really do not like the idea of firing and extremely loud weapon in the house.

That was before I became aware of the greater susceptibility of the .357 SIG to dangerously increased pressures due to bullet setback with repeated re- chambering.

So, I think there are several reasons to not get one.

There are, of course, reasons for someone to get one, other than the idea that it is "nifty."

If I carried a handgun in the out of doors and did not want the weight or bulk of an N-frame revolver, I would have to decide between a medium frame .357 Magnum revolver and a .357 SIG semiautomatic. Versatility involving the ability to use .38 Specials would mitigate greatly in favor of the former, and flatness or trajectory and greater capacity would certainly favor the latter.

 

[Zundfolge]

Every time a cop refers to a fellow citizen as a "civilian" he helps increase the growing gulf between the peace officer and the rest of the citizenry ... It makes too many of them see themselves as "better" than the proles they're charged with "enforcing the law upon".

But for the sake of preventing thread drift I suggest we agree to disagree.