Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
What I'm saying is to stop talking about "machine gunning". Period.
It's neither on topic nor a term of common use nor a SD strategy.
It's neither on topic nor a term of common use nor a SD strategy.
.357sig
- Thread starter Fireman179
- Start date
Deaf Smith
New member
Ah yes, boarding house rules.
But as you know there are trainers who promote 'shooting them to the ground', which is you-know-what.
Deaf
Airborne Falcon
New member
I did some waterjug tests this past weekend with 9mm out of my SIG P226, 40 S&W and SIG 357 out of my SIG P229 DAK SAS, and various handloads I rolled-up out of my S&W 686-6 in both 38+P and 357 Mag.
As expected, various results with the various loads and manufacturers and pill types ... but I can absolutely declare here that the SIG 357 Winchester Ranger-T was the most impressive in terms of expansion. Perfect talons, perfect uniform expansion, just beautiful. 3 jug penetration, which was the least of those mentioned above, but with the expansion it gave I don't mind the over-penetration issues.
I'll have to take pictures and share them.
zombietactics
New member
Deaf Smith said:
In most cases, earlier expansion is exactly what you get out of extra velocity/energy ... but at a cost of penetration, which is generally an inch or so less.
Since you still get +12" of penetration, so no big whoop, and it can be said that you do indeed get a slightly better "something-or-other" with higher velocity rounds like .357sig. I'm not certain it's anything important, but it's measurable.
Whether that confers any real advantage owing to those factors, or a disadvantage owing to more recoil ... I think we're in the area of raw conjecture, YMMV and opinion at that point.
Last edited:
Deaf Smith
New member
As for advantage of one over the other I susbscriber to Jeff Cooper's advice.
Carry the largest round that you can control and conceal.
I find from the Glock sub-compacts the .357 Sig and .40 S&W are about it. Try to add more power and I can't control it one handed with any speed.
If I want more power... I go to a bigger gun!
Deaf
Carry the largest round that you can control and conceal.
I find from the Glock sub-compacts the .357 Sig and .40 S&W are about it. Try to add more power and I can't control it one handed with any speed.
If I want more power... I go to a bigger gun!
Deaf
zombietactics
New member
While I have tremendous respect for everything Cooper did to advance handgun technique ...
... I'd be careful about any advice he gave on terminal ballistics. He simply revealed himself to know almost nothing about the subject. It's unfortunately the case that his well-deserved reputation in one sphere led people to believe that he was expert in the other.
In his defense, he was not alone in that respect. He was in the company of other notables like Julian Hatcher and John Taylor, who also regularly espoused opinions contrary to established laws of physics.
Last edited:
Deaf Smith
New member
zombietactics,
Well it's not about ballistics per see.
Ayoob and others have found that yes the more powerful guns do TEND to stop better. And the better shaped and designed bullets TEND to do better. And shot placement does TEND to make a difference.
And that is why I take Cooper's advice.
And yes, I do remember him saying GI .45 ball was a 95 percent stopper (19 out of 20.)
I considered that gospel till I shot a rabbit with FMJ .45 ball and the bunny ran off a distance before I shot him again.
Deaf
Well it's not about ballistics per see.
Ayoob and others have found that yes the more powerful guns do TEND to stop better. And the better shaped and designed bullets TEND to do better. And shot placement does TEND to make a difference.
And that is why I take Cooper's advice.
And yes, I do remember him saying GI .45 ball was a 95 percent stopper (19 out of 20.)
I considered that gospel till I shot a rabbit with FMJ .45 ball and the bunny ran off a distance before I shot him again.
Deaf
zombietactics
New member
Actually, terminal ballistics is the very thing we are discussing.
Mas (and others?) is a great guy ... seriously, a hero of mine for all the reasons he ought to be. I RSO'd for a class of his once and found him to be a genuinely decent person with a great sense of humor. He's also fascinating to talk to at the dinner table.
I don't think I've argued against shot placement ... and I wouldn't. I think a well-designed projectile or cartridge makes a difference, and I don't believe I've ever said otherwise.
I'm not really sure what "the more powerful guns" means in context, and how much you are suggesting they "tend" to do better? How much is that tendency ... 1%? ... 10%? ... does anyone claim to know?
I'll give you this much ... faster rounds tend to expand better/earlier than slower rounds. That's something measurable, and so I'd hazard a guess that it's better in some way. How much? ... 1% ... 10% ... I don't know of anyone who really claims to know, with anything more than an educated guess.
I'd never tell anyone using any solid duty caliber, with a tested/validated cartridge design, that they are "doing the wrong thing". That wouldn't make sense, as the science simply says otherwise.
There really aren't significant advantages either. Where we get into trouble is believing that some special caliber or gun is likely to be the thing which makes the difference.
I'm going to go do my nightly 10-15 minutes of dry practice, which I think is likely to make a much bigger difference should the unfortunate occasion arise.
Last edited: