9mm, .357 SIG, and the hydrostatic shock can of worms...

[Nephrology]

My apologies if the issue has been covered in one of the stickied threads or elsewhere on m4c but my cursory searching did not see it mentioned.

My buddy recently decided to sell his Glock 30 to trade up for a Glock 32. He seems very enamored with the .357 SIG cartridge. That's fine by me, it seems like a fun caliber to shoot. However, my question is this - at what point do .357 SIG and 9mm begin to differentiate themselves? Does this "hydrostatic shock" concept, which I've heard both embraced and refuted by numerous different sources, actually come into play? What evidence does there exist for or against it?

I currently carry 115gr Cor-Bon DPX +P which goes roughly 1250FPS out of my glock 19. The equivalent DPX load in .357 SIG is only going 1350FPS, ~100FPS difference.
So, I suppose the crux of my question is, at what point does .357 SIG become more "worthwhile" than 9mm?


Any thoughts and/or evidence, anecdotal or statistic, are welcome.

[DocGKR]

1. Your friend is an idiot.

2. This has been discussed before:

"The 357 Sig 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. Most 357 Sig loadings, unless the fail to expand, do not offer excessive penetration; in fact, the exact opposite, under-penetration, can be a problem. Several .40 S&W and .45 ACP loads offered superior terminal performance through barriers compared to the 9mm and 357 Sig loads. In addition to having tested virtually all the handgun ammo available in lab settings, we have also had the opportunity to analyze numerous OIS incident forensic results and have not observed any greater incapacitation in actual shootings with users of 357 Sig loads compared to those users of 9 mm, .40 S&W, or .45 ACP who are using equivalent modern, well engineered ammunition.

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. 357 Sig seems to beat the snot out of 3rd gen Glocks--I'd rather use it in a older Sig P229 or a full size S&W M&P; I have not seen any durability data on how 357 Sig is working with 4th gen Glocks. On the other hand, since the 357 Sig is a modern cartridge benefiting from the latest engineering concepts, the bullets loaded with it have generally all been designed and tested using the latest FBI, IWBA, etc... testing protocols. This results in more robust terminal performance, less failures to expand, and thus greater tissue damage than will be found with older projectile designs. In addition, since according to data from Fackler and others, approximately 50% of shooting victims are incapacitated by psychological mechanisms, it is possible that the increased blast, flash, and noise of the 357 Sig enhances psychological perceptions of being shot.

In discussing this issue with an experienced ammunition engineer at one of the major ammo companies, he stated that he didn't particularly like the 357 Sig from an engineering perspective and described their difficulties in designing and producing 357 Sig ammunition which consistently performs as well as their ammunition in other service calibers. In particular, he felt his company's 357 Sig loads offered no better performance than their top 9 mm loads and stated their .40 S&W loads were superior in every respect to their 357 Sig ammunition. He firmly believes their .40 S&W offerings are the best performing duty ammunition his company produces.

We have found .40 S&W 180 gr to perform very well against barriers--better than the 9 mm and 357 Sig. The CHP used a variety of .357 Mag loads, depending upon what was available via the state contract. According to the published CHP test data, the .357 Magnum load used immediately prior to the CHP transition to .40 S&W was the Remington 125 gr JHP with an ave. MV of 1450 f/s from their duty revolvers--CHP has continued to report greater success with their .40 S&W 180 gr JHP than with the .357 Magnum 125 gr JHP they previously issued.

For many agencies, adoption of a new weapon system frequently necessitates more intensive training and instruction than might typically occur, thus officer's shooting skills might be at a higher peak than normal and qualification scores and hopefully officer involved shooting hits might increase. Having confidence in your handgun is a GREAT reason to choose a particular caliber and weapon system; if a 357 Sig works for you, go for it. Neither myself nor any of my colleagues choose to carry 357 Sig--quite a few of us carry 9 mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP. However, if I was at an agency that gave me unlimited 357 Sig ammo, then I would happily carry it! Otherwise, I would probably stick with a 9 mm if I wanted a .355" bullet. The bottom line is that all of the common service pistol calibers have loads that work--pick something that is reliable and works well for you, then practice......................a lot."

[Nephrology]

1. Your friend is an idiot.

2. This has been discussed before:

Thank you very much the reply. I am aware that he might need some experience that goes outside taking deer with his dirty reloaded .45. Where did you pull the selected quote from? I read through all of the stickied threads on pistol ammunition - I must have missed that. My apologies.

[DocGKR]

It was in a past thread, but not a stickied one--I used the search function to locate it...

[Nephrology]

It was in a past thread, but not a stickied one--I used the search function to locate it...

Thanks. I will search for it and give it a good reading. There are a lot of Elmer Fudd types piping in with their opinions of caliber and cartridge selection based on the "testing" they did at the trash pit with milk jugs full of water and old car doors.... it is good to have a professional resource here on m4c.

Speaking of which, as long as I have your attention, do you think there is any validity to the concern that carrying 9mm JHPs in cold weather environments may reduce their efficacy on targets wearing heavy clothing? I ask because Massad Ayoob once mentioned something to the effect that he recommends .45 ACP for people who carry in colder climates for this reason. I am relocating to New England shortly and it is making me re-think .45... though it seems to me I would probably be better served by buying 450 dollars + worth of 9mm and practicing with that, instead.

[Reagans Rascals]

I don't have any experience with the .357 SIG round, however, I have heard from a few times that the .357 SIG round is one of the only rounds available on the market right now that will penetrate body armor, I would assume the other belonging to the FN Five-Seven.

However, this is just hear-say, I have no knowledge of its validity.. its very possible its just gun-store commando jargon like the "hit a man in the hand with a .45 and knock him down" rumor...

[TOrrock]

Thanks. I will search for it and give it a good reading. There are a lot of Elmer Fudd types piping in with their opinions of caliber and cartridge selection based on the "testing" they did at the trash pit with milk jugs full of water and old car doors.... it is good to have a professional resource here on m4c.

Speaking of which, as long as I have your attention, do you think there is any validity to the concern that carrying 9mm JHPs in cold weather environments may reduce their efficacy on targets wearing heavy clothing? I ask because Massad Ayoob once mentioned something to the effect that he recommends .45 ACP for people who carry in colder climates for this reason. I am relocating to New England shortly and it is making me re-think .45... though it seems to me I would probably be better served by buying 450 dollars + worth of 9mm and practicing with that, instead.

I'd highly recommend reading through Doc's stuck thread on service calibers and ammunition:

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887

[Nephrology]

o the FN Five-Seven.

However, this is just hear-say, I have no knowledge of its validity.. its very possible its just gun-store commando jargon like the "hit a man in the hand with a .45 and knock him down" rumor...

It is truly disappointing how proliferate such rumors are both on the internet and among shooters at large. I am a scientist by trade so it is nice to have information that is thoroughly investigated and presented without any fist-pumping jingoistic B.S. about how bigger bullets make your nuts dangle lower, or whatever.

[Nephrology]

I'd highly recommend reading through Doc's stuck thread on service calibers and ammunition:

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=19887

I have done so, but it did not explicitly mention expansion on thickly clothed targets, at least I dont think so.... I will give it a re-read now.

edit: having just discovered FirearmsTactical.com, I now have a good night or two's worth of reading (on top of the journals I am deliquent in reading...)

Many thanks DocGKR

[Zhukov]

It was in a past thread, but not a stickied one--I used the search function to locate it...

Doc: Good summary. Was that something you had written, or was it someone else?

[ETA] Never mind - I found it: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=22265&page=3