.357 Sig, Can't find info

[Fail-Safe]

And if ft lbs of energy in a handgun round meant a thing when it comes to wounding, you'd have a point. Unfortunately it doesnt.....

[Longhorn]

Speer shows a 9mm 125 at 1050 fps 364 ftlb and and a 357 SIG 124 at 1350 fps and 506 ftlb, which is a 40% increase. That's enough difference to make a difference.

Your bullet weights are backwards, but your #s are right otherwise...

Another thing to make note of with Speer (least on the LE side) there's 2 357 Sig loads - the 54234 and 53918 (majority of the 20 round boxes are 23918). The 53918 is the same load used by the TX DPS, NC SHP and US Secret Service.

The one being quoted is the 2/53918. And yes, it makes a difference as I've never seen anything showing the 54234 is a "better" load even though it's got more velocity and energy than the 53918.

[Fail-Safe]

Why are people saying that USSS is using the Speer GDHP in .357sig? Did they change recently? There are some Treasury folks that have been in the local cop shop, and they still have Rangers.

As for the other .357sig carry load from Speer, it has more penetration at the cost of less expansion. .55 as opposed to .63.

[MPK9Cop]

I think what is being forgotten is that the .357 sig round was originally designed to replicate the ballistics of a 125 gr 357 magnum load. This was achieved and as such the power threshold is limited in the sig. All I have read shows nearly identical ballistics in the 125 gr area. The theory was to have a semi auto with the same punch coming out of the wheelgun that was being carried at the time.

Okay, off the soap box now.

[Suwannee Tim]

And if ft lbs of energy in a handgun round meant a thing when it comes to wounding, you'd have a point. Unfortunately it doesnt.....

You are saying energy means nothing? 'Cause it does mean something. It does not tell the whole story, no single measure does, but it does mean something. If energy means nothing, pray tell, what measure does mean something?

[Fail-Safe]

Depth of penetration.

Expansion.


Thats it. Take for instance Winchester Ranger Talon. The 125gr .357sig is going to have more FPE, but the the 147gr 9mm load is going to eat its lunch with regards to penetration and expansion.

And now I will refer you to this report, please read it:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf

[Suwannee Tim]

Depth of penetration.

Expansion.


Thats it. Take for instance Winchester Ranger Talon. The 125gr .357sig is going to have more FPE, but the the 147gr 9mm load is going to eat its lunch with regards to penetration and expansion.

And now I will refer you to this report, please read it:

http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf

I have read the FBI report several times as have most informed shooters. The single most important point of this paper is the desirability of adequate penetration. The problem with penetration and expansion as measures of effectiveness is that they have to be determined experimentally at considerable cost. I am not aware of anyone who has measured penetration and expansion of a large number of bullets so these measures are less useful because the numbers do not exist. When you claim that penetration and expansion of the 147 grain 9mm is superior to the 125 grain 357 SIG, it is purely speculation on your part unless you have test results on the 357 SIG and then you need to specify the bullet. I wouldn't compare 125 grain 357 to 147 grain 9mm, I would compare 147 to 147. The beauty of the energy measure is the ease with which it can be calculated. Reliable statistics on penetration and expansion may some day be available for many bullets and loads, until then, energy is a useful, if limited measure.

[WillBrink]

I have read the FBI report several times as have most informed shooters. The single most important point of this paper is the desirability of adequate penetration.

If that were the major concern, FMJ would be recommended.

The problem with penetration and expansion as measures of effectiveness is that they have to be determined experimentally at considerable cost. I am not aware of anyone who has measured penetration and expansion of a large number of bullets so these measures are less useful because the numbers do not exist.

What do you mean by "large numbers"? When a large PD, or fed agency, or mil, etc are testing ammo via established protocols, do you think they use one box? Are you under the impression the variability between lots of ammo by reputable makers of ammo varies so much only X number tested is accurate?

When you claim that penetration and expansion of the 147 grain 9mm is superior to the 125 grain 357 SIG, it is purely speculation on your part unless you have test results on the 357 SIG and then you need to specify the bullet.

There's no lack of testing of major brands, bullet weights, etc, etc. A look at the various postings by Dr Roberts here, with various cites to yet more testing by he and others exists.

I wouldn't compare 125 grain 357 to 147 grain 9mm, I would compare 147 to 147. The beauty of the energy measure is the ease with which it can be calculated.

Easy calculations - that have essentially no use compared to established protocols regarding terminal ballistics - are easy, and of little value to actual terminal ballistics when discussing handgun rnds.

Reliable statistics on penetration and expansion may some day be available for many bullets and loads, until then, energy is a useful, if limited measure.

I think those particularly knowledgeable about this topic will not agree with the above. I could be wrong...

[Longhorn]

Why are people saying that USSS is using the Speer GDHP in .357sig? Did they change recently? There are some Treasury folks that have been in the local cop shop, and they still have Rangers.

As for the other .357sig carry load from Speer, it has more penetration at the cost of less expansion. .55 as opposed to .63.

I was unaware they had made a change at all, going by a previously posted FBI ammunition test (that dates back to 01ish?) as well as what I've heard from others who work/worked with USSS members.

If they're using Rangers, I'll gladly change my info.

[Fail-Safe]

I was unaware they had made a change at all, going by a previously posted FBI ammunition test (that dates back to 01ish?) as well as what I've heard from others who work/worked with USSS members.

If they're using Rangers, I'll gladly change my info.

LOL!

Its weird. Perhaps they have two contracts. I've spoken to treasury folks who referred to the .357sig Ranger T loading as the new "treasury load" because of its lessened penetration. Same with the 115gr+P+ rounds they used in their 9mm SIGs previously, as well as the 110+P+ .38spec loads before that.