[Guest]

There seems to be, at best, an indifference toward, and, at worst, a strong dislike for, the .357 SIG cartridge. I wonder why even people who choose the 9mm +P+ as a "superior" carry load over standard pressure loads seem to have disdain for the .357 SIG. ???

 

[Stephen A. Camp]

Hello. I voted that I "prefer the weapon (like BHP) that shoots 9mm. The reason has several parts. Speaking only for myself:

1. I'm satisfied with 9mm performance with several factory and handloaded rounds.

2. I prefer the feel of the 9mm chambered Hi Power to the .40 and conversions to 357 SIG would have to be to that version of the pistol.

3. Reloading the slightly tapered 9mm case is easier than the bottlenecked SIG round.

4. My personal world is now pretty tame compared to years past and I don't anticipate having to shoot through laminated windshields or car doors with a pistol; doesn't mean that it couldn't happen, only that it probably won't for me so 9mm and 45 auto constitute the bulk of my auto handguns.

I don't know too many people that own .357 SIG but that certainly doesn't mean that some folks don't really like the round and it must offer pretty good potential as being able to penetrate vehicles (relative to handguns) as Texas Dept. of Public Safety went to the cartridge some years ago, not because their previous P220 forty-five's didn't "stop" assailants, but because the .357 SIG did better against those inside vehicles. I have not spoken with anyone there in a couple of years about the SIG's effectiveness, but the last time I did, it was four for four in the troopers' favor using the .357 SIG.

Best.

 

[Chris Stephens]

Hi there,

I would have to agree with Stephen and also note that it is plain easier to order and find different rounds within the same calibre as opposed to getting a new platform and calibre. I also find that it is easier for me to practice with the same platform and ammo selection, i.e. BHP and 9 mm.

Now I will contradict what I just stated, by saying that if I had the opportunity to own a Sig or Glock in .357 Sig, I would enjoy experimenting with the round immensely.

After all, variety is the "spice of life".

Chris

 

[Josh Smith]

I voted that it's too loud, but would have voted "other" if it were available.

I just don't believe that there's much difference in wounding capability once a certain power level is achieved. I also take into account recoil recovery time.

The .357mag and .357sig are fine rounds. But, so is the 9mm. I just don't believe the difference between the auto rounds is worth worrying about.

Josh <><

 

[Guest]

My only gripe with the .357Sig is that it's a little costly. Otherwise I really like the round.

 

[erich]

I also like the .357 SIG. I had a Glock 33 back when they first came out in the mid/late-'90s, and shot it a lot.

The round is super-reliable (you're shoving a 9mm pole into a 10mm hole) and plenty accurate. It's feisty, and it took me about 500 rounds to stop flinching from the concussion pressure wave (similar to that from a fast .357 mag bullet) that hit my chest everytime I clicked the Glock's trigger rearward.

And I couldn't get my wife to even consider picking the G33 up (unlike my G26, which she'll at least try). Crowds would gather when I'd shoot the pocket rocket, but no one really wanted to try it.

The price of ammo is tough. It's come down some, but you'll still not find .357 SIG ammo anywhere near as cheap as 9x19. Just think of all the extra practice you can squeeze in (and think of all the 9x19 I could have fired instead of the 2200 rounds of .357 SIG that I did fire . . .).

Also, however, there is the issue of bullet set-back. Initially, at least, you couldn't find .357 SIG ammo with a cannellure to hold the bullets. This is an important consideration in any bottlenecked handgun round (just look at the mega-crimps on the Sov's 7.62x25 rounds to see what I mean), but it seemed especially a concern at the close-to-the-envelope .357 SIG pressures.

And I experienced bullets setting themselves back. Some of them way back.

Now, this problem might have been solved by the manufacturers, but to me it was a real concern at the time. I've been thinking about picking up another .357 SIG, and have posted a question about whether the set-back issue has been resolved over on Glock Talk. No useful answers so far . . .

Anyway, I don't have disdain for the round, but I'd say that pricing issues together with the lack of an ability to fire moderate pressure rounds are its biggest albatrosses.

 

[Guest]

Erich,

I hadn't experienced the set-back issue until this week, when one of our shooters found a Speer Gold Dot set back into the case almost half-way. I had the shooter throw away the round, and reminded everyone to always check every round they load into their magazines. I've found other rounds with the bullets pushed down into the cases (possibly from having the boxes stacked, or something like that), but with the pressures of the .357 SIG I didn't want to take any chances. Of course, one round out of thousands I've seen fired is not too shabby, either.

 

[weshowe]

Gents,

Make mine nine. Good terminal ballistics and the added plus of being able to find ammo anywhere. Even if it's not your "prefered" load.

Wes

 

[Guest]

There is an old maxim, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". That is what the .357 Sig, .40 SW, ect. are, fixes for a problem that does not exist. All came on line as a result of the Miami shoot out. The problem there was not with the guns or rounds but with the tactics used by the FBI. But then, that organization has a long history of attempting to place the blame on some one or thing rather than look at itself very hard. I will stick with a proven and available round, 9mm.

 

[Guest]

With the attitude "if it ain't broke...", we would never have had the 9mm itself, and would all still be using ball ammunition for what we do have. After all, previous rounds introduced before 1902--like the 7.65 Parabellum--could have been defended as being "good enough".

I personally like the development of new weapons, cartridges, and bullets. Then, let the marketplace decide.

While the popularity of the .40 S&W can be attributed in part to the 1986 Miami shootout, I think that Jeff Cooper was pushing us towards a cartridge like it before then (the heady "Bren Ten" days).

 

[Guest]

Well seing you asked... .357 Sig is a marketing ploy but then again most products are. Go to any reloading manual and crunch the numbers. A given volume of powder will push a given mass of lead at a given velocity. Which is why the .357 SIG isnt any more efficient than the .40. The .357 SIG is generally loaded with slower burning powder and gives a great deal of recoil and muzzle blast giving the uninformed shooter the feeling of "More Power" similar to a J frame .357 Magnum shooter when anyone with a chrono can tell you all your getting is more noise and muzzle blast. So why do we use bottlenecks? Well although there is no internal ballistic advantage over a straight case there is an external advantage. By bottlenecking it allows us to use a smaller diameter bullet with a higher ballistic coeeficient than the same weight bullet in a parent case straight walled case. This can be seen by comparing longrange trajectories in say a 150 gr 30/06 and a 150 gr .280. launching at same velocity the smaller bullet will shoot flatter and hit harder at long range. Although this can work out pretty well in rifles, the advantage of a higher ballistic coeeficient is pretty meaningless in typical shortrange handgun applications. Which is basically a way of saying the .357 SIG is for people who think heavy recoil and muzzleblast translates into "More Power" in the projectile traveling down range.

 

[Guest]

OK, so every local and state police department, along with a slew of federal agencies, that use the .357 SIG has been fooled by hype and muzzle blast. I would argue that, by physical law, more recoil would indeed mean more power in the projectile traveling down range, all else being equal. Once the projectile leaves the barrel I think the powder burning exerts very little recoil momentum to the handgun, so if it kicks more the same-weight bullet is moving quicker.

I wonder when we will figure out those other marketing ploys: the .45 ACP, 9mm Parabellum, .357 Magnum, .44 Magnum, .38 Super, .223....?

And the feeding reliability of all bottle-necked cartridges has been noted, since you are sticking a .35" diameter projectile into a .40" hole, until the bullet is set far into the chamber.

 

[pff]

Couple of observations if I may.

At least one of our folks here works for an agency that prohibits any bullet bigger than 9mm/357. The SIG round is the only real option they have to getting a little more power in a pistol.

Actually, the blast does contribute to recoil. Its one part of the 'ejecta', which means the stuff leaving the gun. The powder gasses weigh roughly what the unburned powder does. They exit the muzzle at 3-5 times the speed of the bullet. Not much momentum, but the energy becomes significant as energy is mass X velocity squared.

With guns that throw light bullets with lots of powder, like magnum rifles, the effect is more noticable. Its also why a 'dragon call' is more effective on them than on things like a .45-70.

I've not run the numbers, but with the .357SIG and the 7.62X25 I think you're getting into that territory with handguns.

Is it _that_ much more 'powerful' than a 9mm +P+? Probably not, but if the user feels it gives them an edge, then they have an edge.


Regards,

Pat

 

[Guest]

Do a search for actual chronograph results and compare a .357magnum fired in a snubnose to a typical 9mm. Same bullet mass same velocity but way more recoil in the .357. And yes government is succeptable to hype especially considering that many people in decision making positions know nothing about firearms. And something about the powder either it's weight or burn rate has a significant effect on recoil even when the bullets are the same weight and velocity, Ive got a chronograph and haved proved it to myself through actual experimentation.

 

[Guest]

Yes, but different guns. Different weights. Different barrel lengths. Different recoil. Sure the total ejecta can have an impact on recoil, but how much once the bullet leaves the barrel and is more than an inch away? If it were a lot, then a cap gun would damn near take your arm off!

By the way, I forgot to add the .40 S&W to my list of hyped up marketing ploys. That one is sure to fade away soon!

(And, originally, this was a question about .357 SIG and 9mm +P+.)

 

[Josh Smith]

Hi Guys,

I've been letting the tossed-in comparisons with the .357mag go because there is just more data on the magnum, and on paper at least, it's roughly equivilant to the .357sig. I think we can use it for comparison.

Let's just not lose sight of the original question.

Josh <><