.357 Sig in a snub Wheel Gun?
- Thread starter Guv
- Start date
testuser79
New member
It's likely the bottleneck case would cause extraction problems.
I'm guessing superior ballistics to the .357 magnum when the magnum is loaded with light bullets, say 125 grains and below. Probably 125 grains at 1350 fps, just guessing there would be some loss from the cylinder gap, etc.
With heavier bullet weights, I guess the .357 Sig would approximately equal the .357 magnum, 147 grains in the .357 Sig vs. 140 grain bullets in the .357 magnum. Velocity for either would probably be in the 1200 fps range +/- 50 fps. The waters muddy a bit when discussing 158 grain or 180 grain loads in the .357 Magnum.
The .357 doesn't lose as much performance with heavier bullets, even in short barrels. It's not uncommon to see 140 grain bullets at 1200 fps or 158 grains at 1100 fps from snub nose revolvers. For example, the test below with a sub two inch barrel gun.
http://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2012/11/ruger-lcr-357-mag/2/#198-ruger-lcr
Practically speaking, there are other problems with a .357 sig revolver, besides extraction issues.
There's also the reduction in capacity as well. An L-frame sized revolver would hold 5 rounds, instead of 7 in .357 mag and an N-frame would hold 6 rounds instead of 8. I could achieve better ballistics from the .44 mag or 10mm auto/.40 S&W, which would fit in the same sized L or N-frame revolvers.
A j-frame size probably couldn't accommodate the Sig at all, but will work with the .357 magnum, .38 Super, 9mm and maybe even 9x23mm.
I'm guessing superior ballistics to the .357 magnum when the magnum is loaded with light bullets, say 125 grains and below. Probably 125 grains at 1350 fps, just guessing there would be some loss from the cylinder gap, etc.
With heavier bullet weights, I guess the .357 Sig would approximately equal the .357 magnum, 147 grains in the .357 Sig vs. 140 grain bullets in the .357 magnum. Velocity for either would probably be in the 1200 fps range +/- 50 fps. The waters muddy a bit when discussing 158 grain or 180 grain loads in the .357 Magnum.
The .357 doesn't lose as much performance with heavier bullets, even in short barrels. It's not uncommon to see 140 grain bullets at 1200 fps or 158 grains at 1100 fps from snub nose revolvers. For example, the test below with a sub two inch barrel gun.
http://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2012/11/ruger-lcr-357-mag/2/#198-ruger-lcr
Practically speaking, there are other problems with a .357 sig revolver, besides extraction issues.
There's also the reduction in capacity as well. An L-frame sized revolver would hold 5 rounds, instead of 7 in .357 mag and an N-frame would hold 6 rounds instead of 8. I could achieve better ballistics from the .44 mag or 10mm auto/.40 S&W, which would fit in the same sized L or N-frame revolvers.
A j-frame size probably couldn't accommodate the Sig at all, but will work with the .357 magnum, .38 Super, 9mm and maybe even 9x23mm.
Last edited:
Sheikyourbootie
New member
Why would you want to go through the expense to make a revolver in a round that struggles to pull on the coat tails (to fit the cartridge into a semi-auto) of the real .357 round?
OldMarksman
Staff
Poste 2 and 4 answer that pretty well, but there's something else: the "efficiency" of the round won't mean anything, because you cannot shorten the cylinder without putting the barrel-cylnder gap where you do not want it.
I own several .357 SIG's. I reload for it. The HK P2000 LEM that I carry every day is chambered for it. IMO, your idea wouldn't work out in any meaningful way. The cartridge needs some barrel length to really work. Part of the reason I carry a P2000 rather than the shorter P2000 sk. My best performing .357 SIG is definitely my Glock 35 with custom barrel. Then you are talking 5.1 inches. (Actually my best performing .357 SIG has a nine barrel. But that one is an AR pistol!)
A "snub revolver" would not only have a short barrel, it would have a B/C gap. You would get a tremendous flash and blast from both the B/C gap and the end of the barrel. Which is actually a bunch of powder that didn't get consumed in the cylinder and barrel and now it is just burning outside the gun. I find standing at 90 degrees to a .357 SIG auto while it is firing becomes actually physically painful. My Air Marshal buddy carries one on duty and we sometimes practice side by side. If he is shooting a 9mm or a .45, everything seems normal. But when he starts racking off a bunch of duty .357 SIG loads and I'm just a couple feet off to one side, I can feel the punch in my insides every time he pulls the triggers. It's scary to think how much worse that would be in a revolver.
And then there are the other physical problems... I agree... won't work. Just buy one of the new Ruger 9mm wheel guns and you will get nearly the same velocity as you would with .357 SIG. Because of the short barrel and B/C gap. The new 9mm's are supposed to be nice.
All my .357 SIG's are autos of one type or another. But there is one other type that I've considered. Since I have thousands of rounds of ammo lying around and reload for it all the time. I've thought about getting a custom Contender or Encore barrel made. It would actually be an outstanding deer stand gun for our small Okie deer. My shots are usually 35-75 yards. A 125 grain Gold Dot bullet like the Air Marshals use would work just fine on a little deer. And it would be fun to shoot snapping turtles in the creek as well. And gar. And carp. Haven't done it yet but I think it would be fun.
Gregg
A "snub revolver" would not only have a short barrel, it would have a B/C gap. You would get a tremendous flash and blast from both the B/C gap and the end of the barrel. Which is actually a bunch of powder that didn't get consumed in the cylinder and barrel and now it is just burning outside the gun. I find standing at 90 degrees to a .357 SIG auto while it is firing becomes actually physically painful. My Air Marshal buddy carries one on duty and we sometimes practice side by side. If he is shooting a 9mm or a .45, everything seems normal. But when he starts racking off a bunch of duty .357 SIG loads and I'm just a couple feet off to one side, I can feel the punch in my insides every time he pulls the triggers. It's scary to think how much worse that would be in a revolver.
And then there are the other physical problems... I agree... won't work. Just buy one of the new Ruger 9mm wheel guns and you will get nearly the same velocity as you would with .357 SIG. Because of the short barrel and B/C gap. The new 9mm's are supposed to be nice.
All my .357 SIG's are autos of one type or another. But there is one other type that I've considered. Since I have thousands of rounds of ammo lying around and reload for it all the time. I've thought about getting a custom Contender or Encore barrel made. It would actually be an outstanding deer stand gun for our small Okie deer. My shots are usually 35-75 yards. A 125 grain Gold Dot bullet like the Air Marshals use would work just fine on a little deer. And it would be fun to shoot snapping turtles in the creek as well. And gar. And carp. Haven't done it yet but I think it would be fun.
Gregg
But why would you chose it over a 357 mag or Maximum in a Contender? Now if you had maybe an 8" or so barrel for your TC then maybe so, or an abundance of brass as you probably have. What got me to thinking about a revolver in a 357 Sig is the Charter Pitbull 40S&W. That little gun still gets pretty good velocity out of it's short barrel. I sure don't see the 357Sig as any kind of wannbe pistol round.
I agree. A .357 Mag or Maximum has a lot more flexibility than a .357 SIG. The .357 SIG is pretty much a one trick pony. It's a good trick... match 125 grain JHP ballistics from a four inch revolver in a duty size auto. So for service or CCW, that works. It was never meant to be able to use the wide variety of bullet styles and weights of the revolver round.
My case is just special because I have so much of it. Thousands and thousands of once fired brass cases from an AM range. (Back when they used to let you pick it up and walk off with it. Not anymore.) It has been a long time since I did a search but once fired .357 SIG brass used to be one of the cheapest kinds to buy. I always assumed it was LEO types selling range pickups.
So I have lots of brass. Lots of factory ammo as well from back when you could buy 1000 rounds of it for a decent price. More than I will ever end up shooting. And I can't seem to find .22 LR anywhere... made me start thinking it made sense to get a barrel to shoot the ammo I actually have!
Kind of like in the first Obama gun scare. Back then we couldn't find a lot of reloading components. Trying to find .44 Special or Magnum brass was killing me. Then I noticed one of the majors had .44 Russian in stock. I bought the brass, I bought some dies and my Specials became Russians. Those little short rounds always make me smile.
Gregg
My case is just special because I have so much of it. Thousands and thousands of once fired brass cases from an AM range. (Back when they used to let you pick it up and walk off with it. Not anymore.) It has been a long time since I did a search but once fired .357 SIG brass used to be one of the cheapest kinds to buy. I always assumed it was LEO types selling range pickups.
So I have lots of brass. Lots of factory ammo as well from back when you could buy 1000 rounds of it for a decent price. More than I will ever end up shooting. And I can't seem to find .22 LR anywhere... made me start thinking it made sense to get a barrel to shoot the ammo I actually have!
Kind of like in the first Obama gun scare. Back then we couldn't find a lot of reloading components. Trying to find .44 Special or Magnum brass was killing me. Then I noticed one of the majors had .44 Russian in stock. I bought the brass, I bought some dies and my Specials became Russians. Those little short rounds always make me smile.
Gregg
The .357 Sig was developed specifically so that semiautos would have a round in the same ball park performance wise as the .357 Magnum. In some ways it does, but .357 Sig doesn't have the full bandwidth .357 Magnums enjoy (everything from primer only wax bullet mouse fart loads up to 180 grain Keith style hard case loudenboomers).
Introducing the Sig round into revolvers would be making a copy of a copy.
Besides, the fact that Sig is a bottleneck cartridge pretty much kills it. A revolver chamber would offer no support of the bottleneck portion of the case, which I presume would lead to a pretty nasty blow out. You would essentially have to engineer some sort of case support system into each and every cylinder, and I would think you would need some way to maintains forward pressure on the round in order to seal and support all around the bottleneck.
It could probably be done, but at great cost, and you would actually be losing versatility over .357 magnum as you wouldn't be able to the full range of loads the magnum can, nor could you use lower cost .38 special.
Nah, 9mm +P revolvers or even .40 S&W make way more sense in comparison to .357 Sig.
Introducing the Sig round into revolvers would be making a copy of a copy.
Besides, the fact that Sig is a bottleneck cartridge pretty much kills it. A revolver chamber would offer no support of the bottleneck portion of the case, which I presume would lead to a pretty nasty blow out. You would essentially have to engineer some sort of case support system into each and every cylinder, and I would think you would need some way to maintains forward pressure on the round in order to seal and support all around the bottleneck.
It could probably be done, but at great cost, and you would actually be losing versatility over .357 magnum as you wouldn't be able to the full range of loads the magnum can, nor could you use lower cost .38 special.
Nah, 9mm +P revolvers or even .40 S&W make way more sense in comparison to .357 Sig.
Last edited:
The problem in a revolver firing a bottle-neck cartridge is the seat-back issue.
To fire 6 shots of a .40+ case in a revolver you also probably need a N-frame size revolver to basically fire a cartridge that has the same ballistic of the .357Mag (and the .357Mag can be fire in a L-frame size revolver with 6 or even 7 shots).
Sorry I can't see any possible advantage.
To fire 6 shots of a .40+ case in a revolver you also probably need a N-frame size revolver to basically fire a cartridge that has the same ballistic of the .357Mag (and the .357Mag can be fire in a L-frame size revolver with 6 or even 7 shots).
Sorry I can't see any possible advantage.
Not really
BINGO. The 22 Jet in the S&W model 53 was notorious for jamming the cylinder.
So why repeat this mistake with a 357 SIG?
Which lives on in the TC; and is a rimmed cartridge. The SIG in a revolver needs moon clips.
Even if the taper doesn't end up being much of a problem, I'm not seeing much of an upside.
Short neck makes reloading more challenging.
Moon clips needed for extraction.
Larger frame size needed for .40 cal base cartridge. Pretty much makes the K Frame size a 5 shot.
Powder choices limited as your ammo could see the chamber of your semi auto.
Necked rounds in revolvers are known issues in tying up the cylinder.
Folks have accurately listed the downsides, which are many and real ones.
But what about the upsides!?!
Well...
1) The 357 Sig and the 40 S&W are shorter rounds than the 38 Spl. or the .357 Mag so the use of speedloaders or moonclips could make reloading a bit faster and smoother.
2) Ummm, yeah well there's...Um...Yeah it's on the tip of my tongue...Umm?
3) If you have time on your hands it could be fun to prove the naysayers correct.
If you wanted to go with the 357 Sig why not bypass that and go for the 40 S&W which is a more versatile round to begin with and likely a better round in a revolver?
There are a few small wheelguns out there in 9mm. They don't sell well for some reason. But they ought to. In a gun the size of a J frame 38 Spl. you could get more versatility with a 9mm and no loss of power. Even more with a revolver in 38 Super or 9x23 Winchester. And not lose a round like you would with the 40 S&W or the 357 Sig.
Problem is it's just hard to beat the 38 Spl./.357 combo in a wheelgun.
tipoc
But what about the upsides!?!
Well...
1) The 357 Sig and the 40 S&W are shorter rounds than the 38 Spl. or the .357 Mag so the use of speedloaders or moonclips could make reloading a bit faster and smoother.
2) Ummm, yeah well there's...Um...Yeah it's on the tip of my tongue...Umm?
3) If you have time on your hands it could be fun to prove the naysayers correct.
If you wanted to go with the 357 Sig why not bypass that and go for the 40 S&W which is a more versatile round to begin with and likely a better round in a revolver?
There are a few small wheelguns out there in 9mm. They don't sell well for some reason. But they ought to. In a gun the size of a J frame 38 Spl. you could get more versatility with a 9mm and no loss of power. Even more with a revolver in 38 Super or 9x23 Winchester. And not lose a round like you would with the 40 S&W or the 357 Sig.
Problem is it's just hard to beat the 38 Spl./.357 combo in a wheelgun.
tipoc
Mike Irwin
Staff
It's possible that the .357 Sig would work fairly well in a revolver, likely better than the .22 Jet.
The .22 Jet had an extremely long, shallow shoulder leading to a relatively short neck with not much straight case behind the shoulder. It's that long shoulder that worked to push the case out of the cylinder and lock up the works.
The configuration of the .357 Sig is completely different -- the shoulder is extremely small, the neck is very long in comparison, and there's a lot of straight case behind that shoulder to grab onto the cylinder walls on firing.
Someone mentioned the .357-44 Bains & Davis. It didn't have a reputation for locking up cylinders nearly as much as the .22 Jet did, even when fired at maximum pressure loads.
The .224 Kay-Chuk was a shouldered case that was used very successfully in revolvers -- again it had very little body taper, an extremely short, sharp shoulder, and a long neck relative to the shoulder.
The .22 Jet had an extremely long, shallow shoulder leading to a relatively short neck with not much straight case behind the shoulder. It's that long shoulder that worked to push the case out of the cylinder and lock up the works.
The configuration of the .357 Sig is completely different -- the shoulder is extremely small, the neck is very long in comparison, and there's a lot of straight case behind that shoulder to grab onto the cylinder walls on firing.
Someone mentioned the .357-44 Bains & Davis. It didn't have a reputation for locking up cylinders nearly as much as the .22 Jet did, even when fired at maximum pressure loads.
The .224 Kay-Chuk was a shouldered case that was used very successfully in revolvers -- again it had very little body taper, an extremely short, sharp shoulder, and a long neck relative to the shoulder.
Here's an old discussion on it from 10 years ago...
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=76666
Though someone there did propose reviving the 38-40 round.
32-20 wasn't too bad, well respected in it's day.
Another discussion elsewhere from 5 years ago.
http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/general-firearm-discussion/69885-357-sig-revolver.html
tipoc
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=76666
Though someone there did propose reviving the 38-40 round.
32-20 wasn't too bad, well respected in it's day.
Another discussion elsewhere from 5 years ago.
http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/general-firearm-discussion/69885-357-sig-revolver.html
tipoc
DannyB1954
New member
The shorter cartridge of the 357 Sig would make the gun shorter, but the larger diameter of the case would make the cylinder a lot thicker.
Most if not all snubbys today are for concealed carry. Longer is easier to carry than thicker. A 1/2" longer is not a problem. A 1/2" thicker can make quite a bump.
There is more latitude in power with the .357Mag. If shooting the hot stuff is too much for you, you can go mild all the way down to .38Spl cowboy loads.
Most if not all snubbys today are for concealed carry. Longer is easier to carry than thicker. A 1/2" longer is not a problem. A 1/2" thicker can make quite a bump.
There is more latitude in power with the .357Mag. If shooting the hot stuff is too much for you, you can go mild all the way down to .38Spl cowboy loads.
Last edited:
jtmckinney
New member
When I was trying to reload for 357 Sig a few years ago I had a lot of trouble getting enough neck tension and had a couple bullets set-back, fortunately the gun would jam or at least it did the times I know it happened. I solved this problem by trading the gun for a Black Hawk in 357 Mag, best trade I ever made, both of us were very happy.
Even with 38 Special or 357 Mag you can have bullets jump the crimp and tie the revolver up from the front of the cylinder, especially in a lighter snub nose. Maybe with moon clips you wouldn't have to headspace off the mouth of the case like a 357 Sig does in a semi-auto so maybe you could crimp into a grove if you found bullets in .355 diameter with a crimp grove. None of the bullets I load in 9mm have a crimp grove. I am aware there are tools that apply a grove so that problem is not un-solveable but you couldn't headspace off the mouth.
Maybe you could have problems on both ends of the cylinder.
If you do try it let us know how it works out.
Even with 38 Special or 357 Mag you can have bullets jump the crimp and tie the revolver up from the front of the cylinder, especially in a lighter snub nose. Maybe with moon clips you wouldn't have to headspace off the mouth of the case like a 357 Sig does in a semi-auto so maybe you could crimp into a grove if you found bullets in .355 diameter with a crimp grove. None of the bullets I load in 9mm have a crimp grove. I am aware there are tools that apply a grove so that problem is not un-solveable but you couldn't headspace off the mouth.
Maybe you could have problems on both ends of the cylinder.
If you do try it let us know how it works out.