.357SIG vs .45ACP

[Gunfighter.45]

I know this subject has been beat to hell. I just want to verify what you guys like more .357sig or .45acp? I my self like the .45acp for any situation, i mean how can you go wrong with over a 100yr old round. I mean please don't get me wrong I respect the .357sig round alot for what it has to offer and does ballistic wise. I really just want get some of your thoughts on what you guys think and what you prefer between both these rounds?

[batgeek]

both are great rounds. i'm quite accurate shooting either(P229 for .357, and P220 or 1911 for .45).

that said, the only consideration i make when assembling a pack out, is capacity.

3 spare mags for the 229: 36 rnds then 12+1 in the pistol = 49 rnds total
3 spare mages for the 220 or 1911: 24 rnds then 8+1 in the pistol = 33 rnds total

on the other hand, in a SHTF situation, .45ACP would be easier to scavenge if my supplies run out.

[30 cal slut]

i love the .357 sig.

it's an extremely accurate round and gets the job done.

when you compare it to the .45 ACP, it has a slightly less "fatter" recoil ... best way to describe it.

it's AWESOME in a 1911 platform ... i have custom 1911 chambered in .357 sig (uses standard kimber .40 S&W mags) with an interchangeable .38 super bbl.

round is somewhat of a bitch to reload, though, due to the taper.

[Gutshot John]

All things being equal...

.45 is WAY more shootable.

Any difference in terminal performance of the two is negligible.

[John_Wayne777]

I know this subject has been beat to hell. I just want to verify what you guys like more .357sig or .45acp? I my self like the .45acp for any situation, i mean how can you go wrong with over a 100yr old round. I mean please don't get me wrong I respect the .357sig round alot for what it has to offer and does ballistic wise. I really just want get some of your thoughts on what you guys think and what you prefer between both these rounds?

Since the .357sig mimics the terminal performance of good 9mm loads but does so with more muzzle blast and less magazine capacity, I just stick to 9mm or .45ACP.

[markm]

I know this subject has been beat to hell.


I've never read this comparison before. :confused:

I've never shot the .357 sig either. I've always been really pleased with the 40 smith.:eek:

[ToddG]

Not to speak for Doctor Roberts, but I imagine he'll have some thoughts on this matter. As I recall, his opinion of the 357 SIG is that it's no more effective than 9mm.

Having said that, a number of agencies I've dealt with directly or indirectly are huge proponents of the 357 SIG cartridge. The most notable, in my mind, is Texas DPS. According to information they shared with us at SIG, their records indicate that the average number of rounds fired to neutralize a threat went down with the 357 SIG compared to those officers who'd previously carried forty-fives. Based on that, a number of nearby agencies also made the jump.

Folks I've spoken to at Virginia State Police and Secret Service also report outstanding success with the cartridge.

As for shootability, in my experience while .45 and 357 SIG are much different in how they shoot, they're very close to equal in actual shootability with the same platform (e.g., I can shoot a P229R-357 as fast and accurately as I can shoot a P220R-45). One exception to this has been the Glock; it seems for many people, the 357 SIG Glocks are quite a handful.

Some shooters find the 357 much harder to shoot, though, and this is caused by the significant muzzle blast associated with the high-pressure high-velocity cartridge. It induces a flinch in some people that is almost impossible to cure. My hypothesis -- totally unproven -- is that because the round doesn't really recoil too much, a lot of people dramatically overcompensate due to the noise/blast and thus start anticipating recoil and using more force than necessary to keep the gun under control.

Other pros & cons:

Pro: extremely accurate, probably the most accurate major LE caliber on the market.
Pro: higher capacity for the same size gun cf. 45 Auto; or, alternatively, smaller gun for the same capacity cf. 45 Auto.
Pro: flat shooting ... the very high velocity of the cartridge extends point blank range to 100yd+. While this is of nominal utility for most shooters, the argument can be made that it's marginal shooters who will benefit most from this since they won't add trajectory to the list of things that impairs their accuracy when shooting at longer ranges.
Con: ammo is ridiculously expensive (even more than .45 in many instances) and can be difficult to find.
Con: choices in both ammo and weapons are limited cf. 45 Auto.
Con: magazine design is critically important to ensure proper feeding; the "bottleneck is easier to feed" argument made by 357 proponents is easily canceled by this.
Con: even slight bullet setback on a 357 SIG can result in extremely high pressure problems. Proper neck tension on the 357 SIG is trickier than most other pistol cartridges while at the same time being even more critical. (note: this is the main reason aluminum-cased Blazer in 357 went off the market)

[Gutshot John]

Out of curiosity Todd or if anyone else knows. IIRC the .357Sig was supposed to mimic the performance of a .357 magnum.

Given that, when PDs that employed .357Mag switched to autos...was there in associated increase in round count? Is there any comparison to be made there?

I not only find the .357Sig harder to shoot, but also the .40S&W for me has stiffer recoil/climb than a .45. I'm sure others' experience will be different but I've never really understood why the .45 gets this reputation for being a recoil monster except in comparison to .38 or 9mm.

[markm]

Good info, Todd.

Sounds like .357 sig is best if the company is paying for the ammo.

[ToddG]

John -- The change to semiautos usually happened from .38's (regardless of what the revolver was chambered for), and almost always meant a switch to 9mm. I'd imagine shorter resets, higher capacity, and changes both to candidate selection and training methodology all played the bigger roles in why "rounds fired" went up.

Getting back to the controllability question, as I said the two are much different. But, with proper technique, most folks seem to shoot them more or less the same ... we're talking real comparisons based on measured accuracy and measured time.

I'm with you, the "monster recoil" of the .45 is a myth. My wife, who is not particularly fond of recoil, found the P220ST (all-steel SIG .45) extremely pleasant to shoot. It pushes harder than the other calibers, but the recoil is relatively slow to deliver and results in minimal muzzle rise.

The 357, in comparison, has a violently fast recoil that makes the gun quite flippy. However, it comes back down from recoil as fast as it goes up, meaning -- with proper technique -- you are back on target and launching your next round very fast. The gun tends to rise almost perfectly in the vertical, too, which makes sight tracking easier.

The 40 S&W is a whole other ball of mess. It has almost the same flip as the 357, but because you're pushing a much heavier bullet at nearly the same pressure level there is substantially more torque (even compared to the .45). At least personally, I find the .40 to be the hardest of the four common calibers (9, 357, 40, 45) to shoot well at speed ... at least, when talking about standard factory LE ammunition.



Sounds like .357 sig is best if the company is paying for the ammo.

Always been my feeling, as well ... but that's why I mentioned the DocGKR caveat. As JW777 pointed out, there are certainly folks who feel the 357 is just a whole lot of extra expense, muzzle flash, muzzle blast, reduced capacity, etc. compared to the 9mm.

[Perryguy]

Glock 21SF, easy to shoot and has 13+1 45 ACP! Hard to beat that combo. IMNSHO...

[TOrrock]

I know that VA State Police and Richmond, VA PD are very happy with the cartridge, Richmond had some fairly high profile shootings that were extremely successful after switching to the .357 SIG with a 125 gr. Speer Gold Dot.

Personally, I'm happy with 9mm +P 124 gr. Speer Gold Dot, but I buy my own ammo.

I like .45 ACP too....:cool:

As others have stated though, if you're not having to foot the ammo bill, there are a lot worse choices than .357 SIG.

[JollyRouge]

I have nothing against .357Sig and several of the local agencies use it to good effect. However, my stance in this battle is simple. A small bullet might expand. A big bullet will not contract.

[ToddG]

I have nothing against .357Sig and several of the local agencies use it to good effect. However, my stance in this battle is simple. A small bullet might expand. A big bullet will not contract.

If the .05" radial difference between an unexpanded 9mm and .45 means so much to you, though, why would you discount the substantially greater expanded diameter you'd get reliably from a modern 9mm JHP? The expanded 9mm JHP will be larger than the unexpanded .45 by twice as much (or more) than that 0.05" radius.

Every time I see that argument, I think: "My bicycle isn't as fast as your car, but it never runs out of gas!"

[Tspeis]

Delaware State Police have been using the P229 .357 SIG for quite some time now and from what's been relayed to me, they're quite happy with the platform. I love my P229R .357 and if I had to choose a work gun all over again, I'd choose the same.

In regards to ToddG's comments about the .357 Glocks, could the light weight of the frame be a contributing factor to the lack of controllability? It seems as though the weight of the P229R's aluminum frame absorbs much of the recoil whereas the Glock feels much snappier. Those were my observations when firing the two. Any thoughts?


Tspeis

[John_Wayne777]

Delaware State Police have been using the P229 .357 SIG for quite some time now and from what's been relayed to me, they're quite happy with the platform. I love my P229R .357 and if I had to choose a work gun all over again, I'd choose the same.

In regards to ToddG's comments about the .357 Glocks, could the light weight of the frame be a contributing factor to the lack of controllability? It seems as though the weight of the P229R's aluminum frame absorbs much of the recoil whereas the Glock feels much snappier. Those were my observations when firing the two. Any thoughts?


Tspeis

I believe that's part of it. My Glocks in .357 sig had probably the worst recoil of any handgun I've tried in a service caliber....as well as nasty muzzle flash, especially on the G32.

The Sig P229 is a much more controllable platform in that caliber, in my opinion....especially the steel framed "sport" version they had a while back.

[ToddG]

While I haven't fired one myself yet, multiple reports I've received from people who've tried the M&P357 say it is more controllable than the M&P40. That says to me it's much more controllable than the G31/32/33. (as an aside, I have a buddy who's both a federal agent and an IPSC GM who sold his G33 because it was "uncontrollable" ... clue!)

Somewhere I have a piece of paper lying around that shows the times I scored shooting a number of drills one afternoon with three different guns:
SIG P226ST-357 (all steel full size)
SIG P226R-357 (aluminum frame full size)
SIG P229R-357 (aluminum frame compact)

I was slightly faster with the all-steel gun than the P229R. I was substantially faster with the P229R than the P226R. There's more to it than just weight.

[DocGKR]

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/docgkr/myhomepage/Handgun_gel_comparison.jpg

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/docgkr/myhomepage/Handgun_expanded_JHP.jpg

Looks to me like .357 Sig terminal performance is similar to all the other service pistol calibers...

Is the .357 Sig bad? NO! It is a very reliably performing 9mm bullet, but it is does not offer significantly better terminal performance compared with the best current 9mm ammunition.

When firing through heavy clothing, automotive steel panels, automobile windshield glass, interior wall segments, exterior wall segments, and plywood, both the .357 Sig Speer 125 gr JHP Gold Dot and 9mm Speer 124 gr +P JHP Gold Dot exhibited nearly identical penetration and expansion results THROUGH ALL THE DIFFERENT BARRIERS, as demonstrated by both our testing and that of the FBI. Several .40 S&W and .45 ACP loads offered superior terminal performance through barriers compared to the 9mm and .357 Sig loads.

Looking at 2 separate FBI tests of 357 Sig 125 gr Gold Dot compared to 3 different FBI tests of 9 mm 124 gr Gold Dot shows that the results are basically the same in terms of expansion and penetration depths. In the steel testing, two of the 9mm's penetrated slightly deeper than the 357 Sig's--one 9mm expanded better, one the same, one slightly less. There was around 100-200 f/s or so velocity difference between the 9mm's and .357 Sig's, depending on which barrel lengths and lots were compared. As far as I can tell, terminal performance between the two calibers is roughly equivalent, with a slight edge to the 357 Sig because of its more consistent performance.

The .357 Sig is not a bad cartridge, it just does not seem to offer anything that is not already available, at the price of less ammunition capacity than the similarly performing 9mm, as well as having greater recoil, muzzle flash, and wear on the weapon compared to other service pistol cartridges--not to mention the increased ammunition cost and decreased availability...

[GLOCKMASTER]

Over the years we have carried the 9mm, .40 and now the .357 SIG. Based on my experience over the last 20 years the .357 SIG stops them better than anything we have used to date. It also has been the most consistent round for us when it comes to stopping BG's.

Since we started carrying the .357 SIG we have had only one person survive a shooting. He will ride around in a two wheeler the rest of his life .

[Heavy Metal]

I would wager that has more to do with better performing modern hollowpoints than any inherent superiority of the .357 sig.

What was the timeframe your departemnt was using the 9mm and 40 and what were your duty loads?

What are your current duty loads in .357 sig?

[GLOCKMASTER]

I would wager that has more to do with better performing modern hollowpoints than any inherent superiority of the .357 sig.

What was the timeframe your departemnt was using the 9mm and 40 and what were your duty loads?

What are your current duty loads in .357 sig?

We carried the 9's in the late 80's through the early to mid nineties. We carried the .40's through the early to mid nineties through about 2000. About 2000 is when we made the switch to .357 SIG.

Our current duty load is Speer 125 grn. GDHP.

[Oscar 319]

The .357 Sig was introduced in the mid '90's. This is when Marshall and Sanow was telling us year after year that the "greatest one shot stop" king was consistantly the .357 Magnum firing 125 grn JSP's (I believe it was 96%).

Intitially the Sig, then the Glock was being marketed to us at the local cop shops as the wonder gun that would mimic the terminal performance of the almight .357 Mag in a high capacity auto. The round was also touted as having more reliable feeding in autos because of it's bottle neck design.

While it sounded good, most guys I knew bought the Sig P226/229/239's in .40's and picked up a .357 barrel for shits and giggles. Most liked the 357 Sig, though it was never accepted into the approved carry list at the time. To this day I am only aware of one agency in my county that allows thier officers to carry a .357 Sig.

The cartridge seemed to have not caught on in the west. I know that one of my friends from LVMPD (Las Vegas Metro) told me it is approved, not issued. I also believe that New Mexico State Police does issue the .357 Sig. Other than that, the trend still seems to point to Officers prefering the .45 ACP. On that note, another interesting cartridge to watch is the .45 GAP. Much the same as the .357 Sig being a better .357 Mag, the .45 GAP is supposed to be a better .45 ACP, attempting to pick up on the trend toward "big bore" .45's.

The New York State Police, SC State Patrol and a few others have adopted the GAP....and I assumed it was dead before it began. So I guess we'll see where that goes.

So, due to the fact that .357 Sig is not an option for me for duty carry, I will take an armchair quarter back position on this one. If I did have the choice, I would not hesitate to choose a .45 ACP over the .357 Sig.

As always in caliber discussions, your millage WILL vary.

O319

[Ed L.]

The .357 Sig was introduced in the mid '90's. This is when Marshall and Sanow was telling us year after year that the "greatest one shot stop" king was consistantly the .357 Magnum firing 125 grn JSP's (I believe it was 96%).

Marshall & Sanow never include in their statistics any situations where one shot failed to stop someone so that additional shots had to be fired.

[Oscar 319]

Marshall & Sanow never include in their statistics any situations where one shot failed to stop someone so that additional shots had to be fired.

Yes, we all know there are flaws in those stats. My point was that "back in the day" before the almighty internet, the Marshall/Sanow Street Stopper stats were gospel to the average joe.

[KTR03]

I used to carry a Glock 32. The pro's have already been stated as have most of hte cons. The other con that has gone unmentioned is that this round is hard on guns! I'm an armorer so replaced parts as I went. I broke pins, a locking block, and cracked a slide (just below the ejection port). At the end of about 25,000 rounds of speer, I finally sheered the barrel log off. This was a "you're dead" jam. I couldn't clear it. To their immense credit, when I called Glock and said that I had finally lost confidence in the gun, they said "damn, after that many rounds we'd like to see it. Send it to us and we'll send you another one for free. Its a great round, but these days there are so many good rounds, good bullets, and other choices, I'm not sure I'd go back down that road.

[AR_Forever]

Here is a good read regarding the .357 Sig round vs. 9MM. It's a little dated but brings up several points often over looked in these types of discussions.

http://www.handguninfo.com/Archive/www.Pete-357.com/9mm.357.compare.htm

[ToddG]

I used to carry a Glock 32. The pro's have already been stated as have most of hte cons. The other con that has gone unmentioned is that this round is hard on guns!

The round is hard on Glocks. To the best of my knowledge, Glock will (if they really want to win a contract) provide agencies with a 40,000-round warranty for any gun except their 357's. The last time I spoke to Glock about it, they claim that no 357 SIG service pistol is good much past 20,000 rounds.

... at which point I mentioned a buddy of mine with the FAM Service who had a recorded 104,000 rounds through his P229-357 on the original frame, slide, & barrel. He had a trigger bar break at around 40k and his decocker spring (which should have been replaced during routine maintenance but never was) broke right at the 100k mark. I don't remember exactly, but FAMS did a machine rest accuracy test of the gun right before the returned it to SIG for analysis, I want to say it was easily shooting 5-shot groups under 2".

While I was at SIG, we did some testing both in the lab and on the range to compare DHS's 155gr .40-cal duty ammo and the 125gr 357 SIG load used by most Fed agencies carrying in that caliber. The DHS forty load actually had more free recoil, faster slide speed, and beat up the gun faster than the 357 load.

Glocks are great guns. In 9mm.

[markm]

I wonder if running a Sig conversion barrel on a G35 would tame down the abuse on the weapon (glock). The guy that heads up our firearms training runs this set up, but I've never asked him about it.

I know when I shot my G24 (long slide) that it cut the recoil of the 40 smith round in half by my estimate. It felt like I was shooting underpowered 9mm rounds.

[Gentle Ben]

I had a Glock 32 for awhile. One thing I noticed while shooting steel at a local meet, was that my 357 Sig rounds put the steel down with more authority than 9mm and 40. Also, the 357 Sig left a slight dimple in the steel, whereas the other rounds left a brass/lead smear on the surface.

That being said, I found the G32 to have noticeably snappier recoil than my 9mms and .45s. Also, the muzzle blast was noticeably harsher in confined spaces (indoor range), and with certain loads, it generated a huge fireball at the muzzle.

I liked the cartridge, but if I were to get another one, it'd be in a metal-framed handgun.