What's the big deal with .357 Sig?

[razorburn]

When you compare the guns that are chambered for the 357SIG to even a 4" 357Mag revolver, you usually have an easier to shoot, more compact, more easily concealed and often a double the capacity gun.

If you query the 357Mag revolver carriers, I'd be willing to bet that the majority are carrying 2" guns, which reduce its effectiveness and shootability even more.

Yeah. Same goes for 9mm guns. If you want to compare the guns shooting the cartridges. Semi's generally have higher capacity. And shooting a weaker round are usually makes guns easier to shoot. If you compare the actual cartridges, the sig just can't do what the mag can do.
I think you'd lose that bet though. The mag snubbies are uncomfortable to shoot. From the revolver forum, a 4" seems to be the length of choice. I carry a mag occasionally, and a 4" is it.

Razorburn,

You are correct about the velocity posted:

http://www.hodgdon.com/data/pistol/357mag.php

I did note that it is from a 10" pressure barrel. Have you ever chroned that data in what I would call a normal gun? Just curious.

No, I've no interest in the ultra wiz-bang loadings for this gun, just pointing out that they exist. I don't know what you would call a normal gun, so you'd have to clarify. 8" magnum revolvers are pretty standard for handgun hunters, and considered pretty normal for them. Alliant also lists a 110 gr loading at 2040fps for the mag under blue dot, so that's into the 1000+ ft lbs as well.

 

[Sniper X]

In New Mexico the Game Wardens got or are getting rid of the .375sig pistols they have. All of those who had to use it for either self defense against animal or human hate that round. They are going back to either .45acp or .40.

 

[Walkalong]

In New Mexico the Game Wardens got or are getting rid of the .375sig pistols they have. All of those who had to use it for either self defense against animal or human hate that round. They are going back to either .45acp or .40.

In other words. In the real world, not paper ballistics.

 

[almtiba]

Hi, Cousin Mike,

I've just bought a IMBEL (Brasilian company, that makes the frames for Springfield Armory) 1911 in .40S&W.

I ordered from a custom gunsmith the .357Sig Barrel. He is going to make me one. I'm not sure how good this might be, but the guy is famous around here for the quality and accuracy of the barrels he makes. But I'll have to wait two months...

He already made me a .357Sig Barrel for my Taurus PT-101 and it works great !

As soon as I get it, I'll post my impressions.

Regards,

Andre Tiba - Brazil

 

[Greg8098]

Whats the big deal with .45 acp???

People are always quick to criticize the .357 sig, about how it can't compare with the .357 Magnum and it's " glorious " flexibility and " unprecedented " potential However few people comment on the fact that the almighty .45 is just a cheap rip-off of the .45 Colt !!! A hot .45 Colt handload will utterly toast the .45 acp. I have never heard of a .45 auto even come close to .44 magnum ballistic territory. Does that mean that the .45acp is ??? So let's just remember that the .357 sig AND the .45 acp were both invented to emulate a very small part of the ballistic spectrum of the revolver cartridges that were used as reference.

 

[Peter M. Eick]

Razorburn,

I was thinking like a 3.5" 357 magnum. This would equate to a 5" 357 sig for equal barrel lengths.

While I agree that longer barrels are more common for hunters, I have to say I have found them quite rare in the real world. I have actually only seen one other 8 3/8" 357 Magnum like my Pre-27 at the range ever. I have seen a lot of 3.5" to 6.5" 357 Magnums though.

The problem I have is when I chrono hot 357 Magnums out of my 6.5" vs. hot 357 Sigs out of my 5", given the same bullet weights (say 124 grn JHP's), I find that there is only about 50 to 100 FPS difference. Most of which I attribute to the longer barrel for the 357 Magnum. I don't own any short barreled 357 Magnums, so I cannot compare more apples to apples so to speak.

From a reloading perspective, if you compare the powder volume of both casings with seated bullets, you should be able to determine which one has a greater potential for overall performance. Not having a single empty 357 Magnum, I cannot say for sure which has more capacity.

Anyone got an empty they can compare and let us know which has more volume?

 

[Warbow]

From a reloading perspective, if you compare the powder volume of both casings with seated bullets, you should be able to determine which one has a greater potential for overall performance. Not having a single empty 357 Magnum, I cannot say for sure which has more capacity.

.357 Magnum has a bit more case capacity. From AmmoGuide:

Case Capacity (Avg. grs. H2O):

.357 Magnum: 26.0
.357 SIG: 21.0

 

[Peter M. Eick]

That pretty well answers it. Given the roughly 20% more capacity for powder, and given a roughly similar bullet weight and working pressure, it would be hard for me understand how the Sig can do better then the Magnum in a pressure barrel situation.

Now in the real world with revolvers vs. solid barrels of similar length, I can see how the SIG could get very close to the Mag or even beat it in some cases. 20% powder capacity roughly equates to 5% (rule of fourths if I remember right) more velocity. 5% more velocity is in the range of what I believe one can overcome by a fixed vs. a vented barrel.

 

[razorburn]

Razorburn,

I was thinking like a 3.5" 357 magnum. This would equate to a 5" 357 sig for equal barrel lengths.

Why do you say that? A revolver has cylinder gap too, losing gases and velocity that an auto wouldn't. It seems like an even comparison should be fine.

Besides, if you want talking about real-world situations, then we can look at real factory loadings for the guns. BB gets 773 ft lbs out of a 4" mag with their 158gr loading. No factory sig loading can come close to matching that out any remotely similar barrel length, if any barrel length at all. 10mm is widely accepted as the mags ballistic twin, and surely there's no contention that the sig matches the 10mm?

 

[two tone]

i like the cartrige alot. compared to the .40 loads in my 23 it is tame. also, it easier to load the the mags with 357 sig

 

[berettashotgun]

I have some beretta cougar pistols- 8040f, mini 8040f, and 8357f. For comparison, my wife has done 95% of her pistol shooting with a glock 17- 115 fmj. About 6k rounds lifetime total I figure. She is a excellent shot by my standards, and is scary accurate with a Para P-12 with 185gr(45acp) golden sabers. That stated, she shot the 8040f with blazer 180gr and was a convert in the first mag, she was a much better shot with the cougar in 180gr .40 S&W than the 115gr 9mm. SO... loaded up the 8040f with RA40TA 165gr RANGER- WHOA!!! " I DON'T like those rounds!!", OK, well- lets see how the 8357 cougar works. Load up some S&B fmj, she now must trade in her beloved 9mm for the sig round. Wait, let's get some of the ranger ( free to us) rounds in there. It is a must have for her, but an interesting observation by my wife- "that 357sig sure lets off a shock wave out in the open~ I'd HATE to be in a confined space and pop a round off." I never thought about it that way, but the 357 sig would do some major hearing damage- a result of its higher operating pressures. I cannot hit squat with my 357sig pistols, but I never shot anything but a 1911 until about 10 years ago. I think the round is an excellent choice with superior ballistics vs. recoil compared to ANY round available to buy or reload. That stated- I'll always stick to the P-14 with the slow 230hp rounds for myself. I edited to add- I can shoot the 40S&W 180,165,155gr rounds and then pick up the HOT loaded ranger 357sig in the IDENTICAL pistol and shoot very low. That says something about controllability and recoil.