What is the point of the .357 Sig?

[ra2bach]

.357 SIG simply attempts to mimic .357 Mag ballistics from a short barreled revolver in a more manageable, and higher fire power pistol. Basically, if you think a 125 grain bullet using a decent JHP driven fast is good, then driving it faster is better. All ballistics is based on this premise, assuming the bullet is properly engineered for the targeted velocity. There is no doubt that .357 SIG is better than virtually every 9mm loading available and is far better suited for continuous use in such chambered pistols.

Tim

I'm guessing you're going to get some disagreement on this...

Doc GKR has repeatedly shown that in testing, the 357SIG has no advantages over the best loadings of 9MM in ballistic gelatin. this is a repeatable, quantifiable response and is not arguable.

however, anecdotal evidence indeed shows a very significant success ratio of this round, and I feel that terminal ballistics are just one piece of the formula that equals making a bad guy stop doing what it was that made you want to shoot them in the first place.

for all I know, the "increased muzzle blast and flash" may have as much to do with it as anything! that is, psychological state and perception on the part of the person being shot are quite as important as bullet performance in circumstances where there is no immediate incapacitation shot (CNS).

[ra2bach]

Actually most 357 sigs are simply 9mm's with an enlarged breach face and a different barrel and magazine. A 9mm that is fed a steady diet of +p+ ammo will last longer than a 357 sig fed a steady diet of full power 357 sig ammo.
Pat

sorry. that's not correct.

well... actually it might be in the case of Glocks. of course, the Glock is a better pistol in 9MM, in which it was designed, than the .40S&W, which was rushed into production by doing what you say.

in pistols designed for the higher pressures of the .40 and 357SIG, that would not be true.

[Business_Casual]

actually it might be in the case of Glocks. of course, the Glock is a better pistol in 9MM, in which it was designed, than the .40S&W, which was rushed into production

Huh? Isn't that pure conjecture? Did you work at Glock Austria when they were creating the 22 and 23? I'm not trying to pick a fight, I just want to know how so many people "know" that Glock didn't do the 40 pistols right.

So help me out here.

M_P

[ST911]

well, actually the 357SIG is cheaper per 50rd. than .45ACP and about the same as .40S&W in JHP quality commercial ammo. in FMJ, the .357 is about a dollar more but still cheaper than .45.

It depends on where and what you're buying. My sourcing, and bids, put 357SIG 1/4-1/3 higher than other service calibers. Add now specialty loads (green frangibles) and it's worse. Where the difference is minimal, it still adds up to substantial differences in total quantities consumed. Add now delivery times and inventory sustainment, and you get a better picture.

in firearms designed for the round, such as the SIG P229, there are no greater maintenance issues - certainly none over the .40S&W in the same firearm.

Was the P229 "designed for the round", or adapted for it from 40SW? My recollection is the latter, but perhaps I am wrong.

My experience here is primarily with Glocks, and there are indeed comparatively more wear issues. I believe it was here at M4C that a colleague posted his own agencies experience with a few hundred of them.

while it does have somewhat more muzzle blast over other rounds, particularly the 9MM, and in some cases the .40, actual recoil is less than then the most common loadings of the .40. and while everyone acknowledges this is a trade-off to using the .40, no one uses it as a condemnation of the round. it has its uses and its compromises, just like any round.

This observation is usually made by trainers more than others, who see the effects of additional blast, shooter fatigue, and effects on performance. We could find examples where it's like and different from others in quantity, but it has a different quality, and effect.

diminished shooter performance in this case would only be relative to the 9MM standard loadings.

Not necessarily, as above.

[sigmundsauer]

I'm guessing you're going to get some disagreement on this...

Doc GKR has repeatedly shown that in testing, the 357SIG has no advantages over the best loadings of 9MM in ballistic gelatin. this is a repeatable, quantifiable response and is not arguable.

however, anecdotal evidence indeed shows a very significant success ratio of this round, and I feel that terminal ballistics are just one piece of the formula that equals making a bad guy stop doing what it was that made you want to shoot them in the first place.

for all I know, the "increased muzzle blast and flash" may have as much to do with it as anything! that is, psychological state and perception on the part of the person being shot are quite as important as bullet performance in circumstances where there is no immediate incapacitation shot (CNS).

Although I have great respect for Doc Roberts and his work, testing bullets in jello is certainly valuable but it will never fully predict how a human will react to being shot from one bullet compared to another. Fully acknowledging that the relative differences between the best 9mm, .40 cal, .357 SIG and .45 ACP are pretty slim, one must still acknowledge that the basic laws of physics always apply. A 125 grain pill travelling 1120 fps will never accomplish the same physical work that another 125 grain pill can do at 1350 fps, period. Just because a JHP opens up quicker, slower, bigger than another is more proof about the bullet's design than it is demonstrating that actual work potential of the particular cartridge. Some bullets is good, some is bad, but all bullets is governed by fysics, yes? You just have to ask yourself whether the relative advantage of one over another are worth it for you. So, yes, I do not believe that I am making a leap of faith by concluding that at typical operating pressures the best 9mm will never be able to outclass the best .357 SIG.

Tim

[sigmundsauer]

Huh? Isn't that pure conjecture? Did you work at Glock Austria when they were creating the 22 and 23? I'm not trying to pick a fight, I just want to know how so many people "know" that Glock didn't do the 40 pistols right.

So help me out here.

M_P

The fact that Glock did little to beef up slide mass or even spring it more stiffly is proof enough that they thought the .40 would be OK in the 9mm platform gun. However, years of extended use have clearly demonstrated that Glock .40s don't last nearly as long as their 9mm little brothers. The .357 SIG was a matter of rebarreling, and nothing more. You don't have to be an Austrian engineer to understand that. Look at every other major pistol manufacturer of .40 pistols. Almost without exception they have all made heavier slides, with stronger recoil springs, and occasional modifications to the frame to handle the heavier recoiling caliber.

Tim

[Spleen]

Off my state bid list:

.357 SIG 125 gr Speer Gold Dot: $281.37

.40 FED 180 gr Hydra-Shok: $213.46

.45 ACP Fed 230 gr HP $194.26

As to the work done by the .357 over a 9mm - does that translate into more effectiveness?

[John_Wayne777]

As to the work done by the .357 over a 9mm - does that translate into more effectiveness?

If DocGKR's tests are to be believed (and I believe they are), no.

[Alaskapopo]

And how do you account for the substantially beefed up slide mass on .357 SIG pistols that is usually built for heavy .40 bullets?....and the stiffer recoil spring rates? .357 SIG is meant to be shot in the pistols in which it is chambered. 9mm +P+ almost always results in measurably higher slide velocity that what the pistol was designed for. Your statement makes little sense.

Any .357 SIG loading can achieve 9mm +P+ velocities with equivalent bullet weights at a LOWER pressure....add that to increased slide mass and stiffer recoil springs and it will almost certainly outlast a 9mm, period. Glocks may be an exception as there is little difference in slide mass and spring rates between the two....and thus don't last as long in .40/.357 SIG.

Tim

It depends on the gun. The only guns with substantially beefed up slide mass is the Sig pistols. Glocks are pretty much identical in 357 sig and 9mm and in fact they are even sprung the same. (same recoil springs). 357 sig Glocks have been known to have issues with parts breaking and a far shorter service life as compared to their 9mm brothers.
Pat

[ra2bach]

Huh? Isn't that pure conjecture? Did you work at Glock Austria when they were creating the 22 and 23? I'm not trying to pick a fight, I just want to know how so many people "know" that Glock didn't do the 40 pistols right.

So help me out here.

M_P

as far as "being there", no I was not. however, the design process and rush to get the .40S&W Glock into service before even S&W introduced their pistol chambered in their caliber is well documented. and I believe the rate of failure and repair is significantly higher for Glocks in .40S&W than 9MM. I do not know about .45.