Why the 357 Sig Glock 32 is my current carry choice.

[CDW4ME]

The 357 Sig Glock 32 offers these desirable features:
-A full grip without the need for any extended magazine base.
-Compact enough at 5'' height to IWB appendix carry
-13 + 1 capacity
-500+ #KE with a manageable recoil

I have converted a Glock 23 and 23C to 357 Sig by simply buying a Glock 32 barrel; I also swapped magazine followers, but that is me.
The converted model 23's have worked 100% and (as a bonus) brass ejection was improved with one of them versus as a 40.

357 HST averaged 1,364 fps for a 6 shots yesterday out of my 2nd conversion, very consistent with what I got previously with the first one.

Why the 357 Sig instead of 40 or +P 9mm?

Comparing data I previously obtained:

Glock 32:
Winchester Ranger T 125 gr. @ 1,340 fps / 499# KE / PF 168
Speer Gold Dot 125 gr. @ 1,344 fps / 501# KE / PF 168
Federal HST 125 gr. @ 1,358 fps / 512# KE / PF 170

Glock 23:
Federal Hydra-Shok 180 gr. @ 969 fps / 375# KE / PF 174
Remington Golden Saber 165 gr. @ 1,048 fps / 402# KE / PF 173
Winchester Ranger T 165 @ 1,146 fps / 481# KE / PF 189

165 gr. 40 Ranger T is "hot"; compared to the 357 Sig KE is close, but that "hot" load generates about 11% more recoil than the 357 Sig.

180 gr. 40 Hydra-Shok is "mild"; compared to 357 Sig recoil is close, but the 357 Sig generates about 27% more KE than the "mild" 40.

Glock 19: (A typical 9mm+P and one of the hottest +P+)
Golden Saber 124 gr. +P @ 1,152 fps / 365# KE / PF 143
Ranger T 127 gr. +P+ @ 1,224 fps / 423# KE / PF 155

At 1,364 fps/517# KE, the 357 Sig offers 18% more KE than +P+ 9mm, for only 9% more recoil.
Compared to the +P 9mm the 357 offers 29% more KE, for just 16% more recoil.

How does all that data correlate to actual shooting?

I did a little test to compare the difference in my average 2nd shot time between 9mm+P, 357 Sig, and 40 out of the Glock 19/32/23.

Both 1st and 2nd shot hitting a 6’’ circle on a larger target at 7 yards is what I want.
That criteria is important, it is not the same as standing at 3 yards being content to hit inside the "coke bottle" of a silhouette. The 6 inch circle at 7 yards requires using the front sight, not point shooting. This "test" is not horseshoes; close to the circle is a miss and would not count. Note that the times were obtained with defensive ammo, not "range" ammo. My point, split times obtained with different parameters than mine are not comparable to mine.

This is the method I used, I shot 4 pairs (8 shots) then checked to see if any shots missed the circle, after covering any misses I repeated with 4 additional pairs. In order to obtain what I considered to be a fair representation of performance, I eliminated the greatest time from each of the four pairs; if a shot missed then I also eliminated the quickest time. The result was at least 4 pairs that remained (for each pistol) and they got averaged.

All three pistols have Meprolight night sights.

Results:
Glock 19 using Federal 124 gr. HST +P: average .26 sec with 13/16 hits.
Glock 32 using Winchester Ranger T 125: average .26 sec with 13/16 hits.
Glock 23 using Remington Golden Saber 165: average .27 sec with 13/16 hits.

Removing subjectivity, data aside, did not make any real difference (in my test) whether I shot 357 Sig, 9mm +P or 40.

The 357 Mag 125 JHP has a reputation for quick incapacitation against human attackers.
357 Sig from a 4'' Glock 32 basically duplicates 125 gr. 357 Mag from a 4'' barrel revolver; yes, I have data.

My Glock 32:
Speer Gold Dot 125 gr. @ 1,344 fps / 501# KE

4'' barrel 357 Magnum in Guntests Magazine March 2014:
Taurus 66: Speer Gold Dot 125 @ 1,320 fps / 483# KE
Ruger GP100: Speer Gold Dot 125 @ 1,345 fps / 502# KE

The 357 Sig Glock 32 is my current carry choice.

 

[Deaf Smith]

I have both Glocks in 31 and 32 flavors (.357 Sigs that is.)

Now for daily carry I use the Glock 26 cause
a) I can sit all day, drive, walk, run, etc.. and it is comfortable, and

b) firing one handed the 127 +p+ Winchester T series is about all I can control in fast shooting... again ONE HANDED.

But if i was to go to a mid to full size gun, yea my Glocks in .357 Sig would be the ones.

And yes, I have 1911s, Browning HP, Sigs, lots of good revolvers, and other handguns to chose from.

Deaf

 

[CNobbe]

I too go for the subcompact 27 regularly. If I want to shoot 357 I can buy a barrel for it. If I want to shoot 9mm, I can buy another barrel for it. If I want to practice with .22LR, I can buy a kit for it.

 

[Lycidas Janwor]

I have a Glock 23 and can shoot .40S&W, 9MM and .357 Sig all out of the same pistol. All I have to do is drop the barrel in. As for the 40S&W and the .357 Sig, I don't even need to change magazines. The Glock mags for the 40 and 357 are identical, except for the badging. Identical.

As for the 9mm, I have Glock 19 mags but if I had to use the .40S&W mags, I could. So, I could use one magazine for three different bullets and all I have to do is yank the slide, pull out one barrel and put the other in.

I love my Glock 23.

 

[1KPerDay]

Interesting post, thanks!

 

[Lycidas Janwor]

The only downside to my Glock 23 situation is this pistol does NOT shoot 115g 9mm (off the shelf, dirt cheap) ball ammo well at all. It jams with that stuff (and the spent casings land right on my chest, almost in my face, lol). But where this pistol shines when shooting the 9mm is the +p ammo. Then, it's great. But you gotta remember that the Glock 23 was never intended to be shot with that light and underpowered cartridge. When you put a 9mm conversion barrel in, it's a thicker, heavier barrel too. Combine that with a light bullet and a lighter powder charge and my pistol struggles.

 

[kdunn]

Good data. My next handgun will most likely be a Glock 32 for winter carry. In summer I like to carry my Shield 9mm for easy concealment under a t-shirt.

 

[moxie]

Nice work! Very interesting.

 

[vaalpens]

Great post and thanks for all the data.

 

[CDW4ME]

Interesting post, thanks!

Thanks.

 

[CDW4ME]

Great post and thanks for all the data.

I'm data oriented. Thanks!

 

[Zerodefect]

Yup. The Glock 23 is also my favorite CCW.

It is nice trying a 32 barrel in it.

 

[Fremmer]

That's an interesting post.

But let me ask:

If you hit your target with your favorite .357 sig, and it completely penetrates, and expands as designed while penetrating, and I hit my target with my favorite .40 S&W round, which completely penetrates, and expands as designed while penetrating, what's the real difference? The actual, significant tissue-damage difference? I'm not sure that there will be a significant difference.

I suppose the gel tests would show a difference, but then again the human torso isn't made of gel.

 

[Zerodefect]

The .357sig round can punch through certain barrier objects a hair better than average. It has a niche there. It's an effective round that meets the lighter faster argument midway.

 

[Fremmer]

Nah, a hole punched all the way through is just that, complete penetration. So both bullets completely penetrate and destroy tissue while penetrating.

 

[Zerodefect]

Go shoot some stuff. Try safety glass first.

It has an advantage in energy carried sometimes. That's as specific as I'm getting.

 

[R.W.Dale]

I briefly carried a g32

I now have a good old fashioned gen2 g17

Bullet setback was why I parted with 357 sig. My particular pistol with ranger T ammo would setback over .030" after the second trip into the pipe.

This might be acceptable for a LEO pistol where practice ammo is carry ammo with the .gov footing the bill. But for me it was unsustainable.

 

[R.W.Dale]

If you compare the numbers for +p 9mm 124g gold dots to similar loads for 357 sig the difference in velocity figures are negligible.

A glock 17 is knocking right at 357sig's door fired from the shorter bbl of a 32

 

[jmr40]

Exactly.

A 125 gr 357 mag fired from 4" barrels will average about 1250-1350 fps depending on the exact load and the individual gun. Even though that is 150-250 fps slower than quoted in ballistics charts bullets at that speed have proven to work as well as anything in a handgun and better than most.

124/125 Sig loads will fall within the same range and are no doubt just as effective.

I'm aware that it is possible to get some 357 mag and Sig loads that will approach 1400 fps, but there is no data to support them being any more effective than the 1200-1300 fps loads that are so well proven.

The better 9mm loads are running 1200-1300 fps, up to 1350 fps from some guns with longer 5" barrels. That is right in the mix with lots of overlap. Some 9mm loads will be better than some 357 Sig loads and some 357 Sig loads will be faster. A bad guy shot with either will not be able to note the difference.

Part of the problem is that American 9mm loads have always been anemic. A 124 gr bullet at 1200 fps is just a standard load in the rest of the world. It is no trick to get an extra 50-100 fps out of them.

 

[CDW4ME]

That's an interesting post.

But let me ask:

If you hit your target with your favorite .357 sig, and it completely penetrates, and expands as designed while penetrating, and I hit my target with my favorite .40 S&W round, which completely penetrates, and expands as designed while penetrating, what's the real difference? The actual, significant tissue-damage difference? I'm not sure that there will be a significant difference.

I suppose the gel tests would show a difference, but then again the human torso isn't made of gel.

Probably not, I like the 40 too.

 

[CDW4ME]

If you compare the numbers for +p 9mm 124g gold dots to similar loads for 357 sig the difference in velocity figures are negligible.

A glock 17 is knocking right at 357sig's door fired from the shorter bbl of a 32

I have no use for a Glock 17 size pistol, length and height exceed my requirements.

I am happy with any of these: 19, 19C, 23, 23C, 32, 29SF, 30SF
The 32 happens to be my current pick.

 

[CDW4ME]

Exactly.

A 125 gr 357 mag fired from 4" barrels will average about 1250-1350 fps depending on the exact load and the individual gun. Even though that is 150-250 fps slower than quoted in ballistics charts bullets at that speed have proven to work as well as anything in a handgun and better than most.

124/125 Sig loads will fall within the same range and are no doubt just as effective.

I'm aware that it is possible to get some 357 mag and Sig loads that will approach 1400 fps, but there is no data to support them being any more effective than the 1200-1300 fps loads that are so well proven.

The better 9mm loads are running 1200-1300 fps, up to 1350 fps from some guns with longer 5" barrels. That is right in the mix with lots of overlap. Some 9mm loads will be better than some 357 Sig loads and some 357 Sig loads will be faster. A bad guy shot with either will not be able to note the difference.

Part of the problem is that American 9mm loads have always been anemic. A 124 gr bullet at 1200 fps is just a standard load in the rest of the world. It is no trick to get an extra 50-100 fps out of them.

I'm not appendix IWB carrying a barrel longer than that of the 19/23/32 which is 4''

Glock 32:
Federal HST 125 gr. @ 1,358 fps / 512# KE / PF 170

Glock 19:
Golden Saber 124 gr. +P @ 1,152 fps / 365# KE / PF 143

There is a 200 fps difference in 9mm +P and 357 Sig from my pistols with 4'' barrels.

 

[R.W.Dale]

160 feet per second is all but meaningless

That's the difference in your 357 hst load vs 124 +p gold dots from a g19, your golden saber ammo is not a shining example of 9x19's potential

There's nothing in the real world that a 12x grain .355" bullet won't do that adding a mere 160fps will make it do.

357 sig's claim to fame was that it replicates light 357 mag loads when they were fired from a 4" service revolver. It's never caught on because you know what else does that? Modern 9mm loads

Like I said I WAS on the sig bandwagon too. But after awhile I came to realize that the "big three" (or 2.5) are tops for a reason.

 

[EBShooting]

I'm a big fan of 357 sig. But for a much less scientific reason. I like the big bark, the big flash, and what can I say, I like recoil. Have a P226 in 357sig and a Glock 31.

But I will also say this, I have 9mm barrels for both. Honestly, the 9mm is cheaper and as others have said, there are 9mm rounds which are just as good and effective as the 357 sig.

 

[Phaedrus/69]

I think the .357 Sig is fantastic on paper. I've been mulling over getting a conversion barrel for my HK P30L v1 LEM .40 cal. It would have to be an EFK Firedragon though since HK never made a Sig barrel for that particular gun.

The .40 and .357 Sig will obviously be pretty close with some overlap since they use the same casing. Underwood loads the 135gr Gold Dot to 1,400 fps in the .40 S&W, very close to the level of the top 125gr .357 Sig loadings. Of course, Underwood is getting around 1500 fps out of their own 125gr GD .357 Sig loads! It comes down to sectional density and what you want the bullet to do. On one level I like the idea of the screaming velocities achievable from the Sig. But I also like the ability to use bullets from 135gr to 200gr in the .40 cal.

It's quite likely that no human has ever been shot with Underwood's 125gr GD @ 1450 fps. Seems like it would be Thor's hammer, though.

I do have a big stack of Underwood 9mm, too, including three boxes of their 124gr +P+ Gold Dot at 1,300 fps. I've seen some reviews of this stuff stating the actual velocity is even higher than the rated numbers. That's knocking on the door of Speer's factory loadings of the 125gr GD in the Sig round. In fact a few reviewers chrono'ing the Speer loads are reporting they consistently fall below the rated speed, so the Underwood 9mm may actually be hotter than the typical factor loaded .357 Sig.