Shot Show 2022

[Caduceus]

B&T had a lot of new stuff. Suppressors made in the USA (one with a very innovative 3-lug attachment method) and the SPC were the big ones. Also, all the rifle caliber APC's got the "Pro" treatment. There is also a B&T ACR stock that will be coming.

Geissele 6 ARC guns shot very nice! They have a new stock or two as well...and some muzzle devices.

Surefire went "Turbo" (back into Candela's) on X300 Ultra, Scout's and a hand held or two. Price will be slightly more (~$25-$50) than non "Turbo" versions.

Mystery Ranch introduced 4 new Assault packs that look very promising.

Modlite had a replacement head to be used on some legacy lights to update them.

Unity had a new magnifier mount that fit's basically all the non-aimpoint magnifiers.

Everyone makes a bolt action chassis pretty much now...

Any info on MR packs?

[gamewarden]

Any info on MR packs?

https://soldiersystems.net/2022/01/1...w-light-packs/

[LowSpeed_HighDrag]

Nothing that really interested me beyond the Holosun 509 Micro and the new Modlite products.

[SteyrAUG]

357 SIG was developed to cover a gap between the 9mm and the 40. Which it did for a brief period of time until 9mm +P+ hit the scene. Much in the same way the 30 Super Carry is trying to cover the gap between 380 and 9mm. I loved the 357 SIG for a brief period of time but eventually went back to 9mm. As a side note I also think the branding, defining it as a SIG cartridge, also did not help its overall adoption. If they had called it the 9mm Magnum it would have grown some legs. Nobody (except Glock) wants to cross brand their models based on caliber.

So to start 9mm +P+ existed long before anyone dreamed up .357 SIG. Then .357SIG has much higher muzzle velocities than .40, the fastest .40 can't catch the slowest .357 SIG. Additionally HK and several other manufacturers chambered for the .357 SIG.

It was the fact that the Glock in .40 was adopted in huge numbers that let it own the market over .357 SIG and 10mm and not the actual ballistic performance. They were also all three being driven on the civilian side my a 10 round magazine limitation law.

[1168]

No worries. I didn't take your comment as being argumentative at all. I watched the review with the Federal rep and even with the 50,000 PSI chamber pressure they were quoting numbers that were mush lower than +P or +P+ 9mm rounds. Check out the Federal comparison chart / marketing. Notice they only compare it to standard 9mm defensive loads and make claims that its just as good as. But once you measure it against a stouter 9mm load it falls behind pretty quickly in all areas.

https://www.federalpremium.com/30supercarry.html

I like to use this chart for comparison. Sure, if Federal cherry picks which 9mm load they want to compare it to they can make those claims all day long. But there are rounds on this chart that leave it in the dust. To me I don't the two rounds extra capacity as enough reason to switch from 9mm.

http://ballistics101.com/9mm.php


Also note in their marketing material they are marketing it squarely as "more power than a 380 and more capacity than a 9mm." Was that really a void that needed filled?

This seems typical of Federal’s new cartridge marketing. Perhaps everyone’s, but I notice it with Federal. They cherry pick an existing cartridge and load, then make a comparison that it’ll barely live up to. Then when everyone decides that it doesn’t do much more than that, it slowly dies. .338Fed was marketed as having muzzle energy like a 7mm magnum, but fits in a short action, where it also competed well in muzzle energy. Sure, with a light-for-caliber bullet, I guess. .327…. More power than .38, more capacity than .357. That one should have been more successful; it does those things well, in a niche that needs those things. .224 Valk is another one that looks good with specific comparisons, but turns out to not be all that special.

[Dutch110]

So to start 9mm +P+ existed long before anyone dreamed up .357 SIG. Then .357SIG has much higher muzzle velocities than .40, the fastest .40 can't catch the slowest .357 SIG. Additionally HK and several other manufacturers chambered for the .357 SIG.

It was the fact that the Glock in .40 was adopted in huge numbers that let it own the market over .357 SIG and 10mm and not the actual ballistic performance. They were also all three being driven on the civilian side my a 10 round magazine limitation law.

I see from your profile pic you are late for a meeting with The Bobs so I will keep this short

Definitely could have worded it better concerning the +P+ I should have said advancements in that load put it on par with the 357SIG. Think Buffalo Bore pushing 500 ft lbs at 1400 fps or so comes to mind with an expansion over .50. Underwood was another one.

As for adoption, who else other than HK, Glock and Sig chambered in that round (that's an honest question because I don't recall.) HKs were impossible to find (I put conversion barrel in my USP 40 and recall it was like finding a unicorn.) I had to special order my G32 and G33 (which I carried both for years) as none of my LGS's stocked the caliber. I think the only one I saw in a gun case on a regular basis was the Sig. I do think the more realistic route people took to sample that round was putting conversion barrels in their current 40 cal guns but thats just a guess on my part.

Given the 40 came out in 1990 in large part due to the FBI looking for a more powerful carry round after the 86 Miami shootout I think it was a foregone conclusion when they adopted it as the "solution" to the underpowered 9mm that the public and manufacturers were going to follow suit. Especially Glock who I believe had the FBI contract back then? Followed by PDs across the country. Essentially I am agreeing with you but also think, at least for me, the ballistic advantage shrunk over time due to round development which made the additional cost of the 357 SIG not worth it for someone like me and my buddies who like to shoot a lot. For the guy who carries and then only takes it out for practice once a year? Not so much. I see the same thing happening with this cartridge.

[1168]

As for adoption, who else other than HK, Glock and Sig chambered in that round (that's an honest question because I don't recall.)

I think Kimber, S&W, and Beretta did .357Sig also. There’s probably more, but as you said, its adoption has been rather limited. I don’t think anyone really sold a ton of them or marketed them all that much. Also as you said, I think Sig putting its name on it kinda sabotaged it, since unlike some other new cartridges of its era, you can’t just drop the “Sig” part when you say “.357” without causing some confusion.

additional cost of the 357 SIG not worth it for someone like me and my buddies who like to shoot a lot. For the guy who carries and then only takes it out for practice once a year? Not so much. I see the same thing happening with this cartridge.

Yeah, the niche for it didn't really work out because:
1) the dude that would otherwise shoot a bunch of ammo in practice can’t afford to. Or, can afford to, but could practice twice as much with 9mm.
2) the dude that reloads could reload it for much cheaper than factory ammo, but it is bottlenecked, therefore more tedious. He can reload more 9mm for the same work and less cost.
3) the dude that fits neither of those stereotypes that shoots a box a year… this cartridge doesn’t really suit that style. Sure, thats true of 9mm, also, but 357 comes with more recoil, blast, and flash, but less capacity. It’s an “expert’s cartridge”, but most experts don’t find that its worth it over 9mm.

Its too bad; .357 Sig is a cool cartridge, despite not really needing to exist. I can see the new 30SC cartridge potentially falling victim to some of the above. I also wouldn’t mind a little more capacity in my 43.

[Dutch110]

I think Kimber, S&W, and Beretta did .357Sig also. There’s probably more, but as you said, its adoption has been rather limited. I don’t think anyone really sold a ton of them or marketed them all that much. Also as you said, I think Sig putting its name on it kinda sabotaged it, since unlike some other new cartridges of its era, you can’t just drop the “Sig” part when you say “.357” without causing some confusion.


Yeah, the niche for it didn't really work out because:
1) the dude that would otherwise shoot a bunch of ammo in practice can’t afford to. Or, can afford to, but could practice twice as much with 9mm.
2) the dude that reloads could reload it for much cheaper than factory ammo, but it is bottlenecked, therefore more tedious. He can reload more 9mm for the same work and less cost.
3) the dude that fits neither of those stereotypes that shoots a box a year… this cartridge doesn’t really suit that style. Sure, thats true of 9mm, also, but 357 comes with more recoil, blast, and flash, but less capacity. It’s an “expert’s cartridge”, but most experts don’t find that its worth it over 9mm.

Its too bad; .357 Sig is a cool cartridge, despite not really needing to exist. I can see the new 30SC cartridge potentially falling victim to some of the above. I also wouldn’t mind a little more capacity in my 43.

Exactly. I really like the round but the economics never made sense for me. Pre covid I was going through 1000 plus rounds a month shooting 9mm in both practice and one match a month. I couldn't afford to keep up with that pace with 357 SIG. Plus the few matches I did shoot with it (just for fun) were less than enjoyable for all the reasons you mentioned. Splits and transitions suffered. Though it did punish the bowling pins on a few stages lol.

[SteyrAUG]

I see from your profile pic you are late for a meeting with The Bobs so I will keep this short

Definitely could have worded it better concerning the +P+ I should have said advancements in that load put it on par with the 357SIG. Think Buffalo Bore pushing 500 ft lbs at 1400 fps or so comes to mind with an expansion over .50. Underwood was another one.

As for adoption, who else other than HK, Glock and Sig chambered in that round (that's an honest question because I don't recall.) HKs were impossible to find (I put conversion barrel in my USP 40 and recall it was like finding a unicorn.) I had to special order my G32 and G33 (which I carried both for years) as none of my LGS's stocked the caliber. I think the only one I saw in a gun case on a regular basis was the Sig. I do think the more realistic route people took to sample that round was putting conversion barrels in their current 40 cal guns but thats just a guess on my part.

Given the 40 came out in 1990 in large part due to the FBI looking for a more powerful carry round after the 86 Miami shootout I think it was a foregone conclusion when they adopted it as the "solution" to the underpowered 9mm that the public and manufacturers were going to follow suit. Especially Glock who I believe had the FBI contract back then? Followed by PDs across the country. Essentially I am agreeing with you but also think, at least for me, the ballistic advantage shrunk over time due to round development which made the additional cost of the 357 SIG not worth it for someone like me and my buddies who like to shoot a lot. For the guy who carries and then only takes it out for practice once a year? Not so much. I see the same thing happening with this cartridge.

Well here is the first problem, 9mm +P+ isn't meant for most handguns. It's a subgun round that destroys handguns so it doesn't really put it on par with .357 SIG which is designed to function with that round.

Minor nit pick, FBI actually went 10mm after the 86 shootout. Both the .357 SIG and the .40 were scaled down versions of the 10mm because everyone felt the 10mm was too much and for whatever reason the .40 won the "vhs vs beta" war. Ironically a nearly identical cartridge .41 Action Express was developed by IMI mid 80s and was completely ignored by everyone. The .41 AE might be superior to all of them but nobody was paying attention.

And yeah, for lots of reasons people played "wait and see" with both the .40 and the .357 SIG. I had no trouble getting a USP compact in .357 SIG. At the time all of these calibers were sorta like 10mm and exotics. If PDs across the country all went with Glock in .357 SIG that would have been the standard, but I think being a hotter round when it came to "everyone" being able to qualify, people decided to go with the .40 S&W and it's not a terrible round or anything. There was the issue of unsupported chambers in .40 Glocks but that is a design problem with the Glock and not a problem with the round.

And for the record, and just so you don't think this is serious debate, I carry 9mm almost exclusively.

[Alaskapopo]

So to start 9mm +P+ existed long before anyone dreamed up .357 SIG. Then .357SIG has much higher muzzle velocities than .40, the fastest .40 can't catch the slowest .357 SIG. Additionally HK and several other manufacturers chambered for the .357 SIG.

It was the fact that the Glock in .40 was adopted in huge numbers that let it own the market over .357 SIG and 10mm and not the actual ballistic performance. They were also all three being driven on the civilian side my a 10 round magazine limitation law.

Just a minor correction the fastest 40s did out run the heavy bullet 357 sigs (135 grain 40 vs 150 grain 357 sig) in fact if bullet weight was kept equal the 40 had a slight edge comparing 150 grain bullets to 155 grain bullets.
Pat