40 SW vs 357 SIG
- Thread starter hube1236
- Start date
Do a search here for "40S&W vs .357Sig" and you will get MANY responses. I may speak for SEVERAL people when I say it's all a matter of taste. There is no answer, and the question is somewhat old.
Blah blah, 357Sig is better blah blah.
Blah blah, .40S&W is better blah blah.
I like the .40 becasue the .357Sig is just a fast 9mm. The .40 is bigger and ammo is usually cheaper.
That's all I'm sayin,
Ben
------------------
Almost Online IM: BenK911
ICQ # 53788523
"Gun Control Is Being Able To Hit Your Target"
Blah blah, 357Sig is better blah blah.
Blah blah, .40S&W is better blah blah.
I like the .40 becasue the .357Sig is just a fast 9mm. The .40 is bigger and ammo is usually cheaper.
That's all I'm sayin,
Ben
------------------
Almost Online IM: BenK911
ICQ # 53788523
"Gun Control Is Being Able To Hit Your Target"
Talking about self-defense, these two factors are much more important than which caliber you choose (out of 9mm, 357SIG, .40, .45ACP):
1. that you hit your target
2. that you are using a high-quality commercial load designed for self-defense (eg: CCI/Speer Gold Dot, ProLoad, Federal HydraShok).
.40 ammo is cheaper, and is much easier (faster) to reload, if you are going to be shooting lots.
-z
1. that you hit your target
2. that you are using a high-quality commercial load designed for self-defense (eg: CCI/Speer Gold Dot, ProLoad, Federal HydraShok).
.40 ammo is cheaper, and is much easier (faster) to reload, if you are going to be shooting lots.
-z
The answer to your question depends on whether or not you are a "small and fast" guy or a "big and slow" guy when it comes to bullet taste.
When all the posts finally come in on this topic, there will be the same people that like small, fast bullets that dump large amounts of energy very quickly that say the .357SIG is the end-all bullet. The same people that usually post that they like bigger bullets will post that the .40 is better.
If you're shooting a 9mm or a .40cal because you think the .45 doesn't put out enough energy, then you're probably going to rationalize going to the .357 (and then on to the next 'big' thing in fast bullets when it comes along).
If you're shooting a .40cal because you just like the extra capacity that the weapon affords you over a comparably sized .45, then you're probably going to be happier with the bigger bullet.
A P99 is too good of a gun to be worried much about differences between the two bullets in their auto-loading reliability and muzzle flip.
Gimme a .45 and avoid the decision altogether. Wasn't it Jeff Cooper who when asked why he carried a .45 answered, "because they don't make a .46"?
------------------
Take the long way home...
When all the posts finally come in on this topic, there will be the same people that like small, fast bullets that dump large amounts of energy very quickly that say the .357SIG is the end-all bullet. The same people that usually post that they like bigger bullets will post that the .40 is better.
If you're shooting a 9mm or a .40cal because you think the .45 doesn't put out enough energy, then you're probably going to rationalize going to the .357 (and then on to the next 'big' thing in fast bullets when it comes along).
If you're shooting a .40cal because you just like the extra capacity that the weapon affords you over a comparably sized .45, then you're probably going to be happier with the bigger bullet.
A P99 is too good of a gun to be worried much about differences between the two bullets in their auto-loading reliability and muzzle flip.
Gimme a .45 and avoid the decision altogether. Wasn't it Jeff Cooper who when asked why he carried a .45 answered, "because they don't make a .46"?
------------------
Take the long way home...
As mentioned by others, this topic has been covered a number of times in the past but here's my $0.02 on it ... The .357SIG is still a relatively new round and while initially it shows great promise, it has yet to prove itself. Remember, initially the 9mm also showed great promise but was later found lacking. The .357SIG may eventually prove itself equal, or even superior, to the .40S&W or, it too may be found lacking. Time will tell.
Share what you know, learn what you don't -- FUD
Share what you know, learn what you don't -- FUD
BrokenArrow
New member
The 357 SIG is more accurate on avg, but not always (my USP 40 shoots better than my Glock 357). Reliability is a draw as far as I am concerned (have seen both jam in various guns; no edge). The 40 is cheaper, unless you reload, but the 357 is more hassle. The 357 is louder.
Basically you trade about a 10% edge in expansion for a 10% edge in energy/stretch.
From a 229:
155 Silvertip, 1160 fps/460 ft lbs, 12/.70 bare gel, 13/.66 cloth
125 Ranger T, 1325/490, 11.5/.70, 12/.60
155 Gold Dot, 1175/475, 15/.69, 18/.58
125 GD, 1385/535, 15/.60, 19/.53
Flip a coin?
------------------
>>>>---->
Basically you trade about a 10% edge in expansion for a 10% edge in energy/stretch.
From a 229:
155 Silvertip, 1160 fps/460 ft lbs, 12/.70 bare gel, 13/.66 cloth
125 Ranger T, 1325/490, 11.5/.70, 12/.60
155 Gold Dot, 1175/475, 15/.69, 18/.58
125 GD, 1385/535, 15/.60, 19/.53
Flip a coin?
------------------
>>>>---->
The .40 S&W "IS" the 357 Sig. Any well built .40 pistol can shoot 357 Sig ammo with a barrel swap --- same pistol. As long as the .40 is popular, the 357 Sig will be right there along with it, for better or for worse.
The .40 handles the heavier bullets: 135 to 180 grainers.
The 357 Sig handles the lighter bullets: 90 to 150 grainers.
Together, the 40/357 have an amazing flexibility for just about any application you can think of.
When you feel like more energy and less torque, use a 357. When you feel like a bigger bullet that works great, use the .40.
Very simple.
The .40 handles the heavier bullets: 135 to 180 grainers.
The 357 Sig handles the lighter bullets: 90 to 150 grainers.
Together, the 40/357 have an amazing flexibility for just about any application you can think of.
When you feel like more energy and less torque, use a 357. When you feel like a bigger bullet that works great, use the .40.
Very simple.
"Remember, initially the 9mm also showed great promise but was later found lacking"
Huh?
"Initially" as in like 1903?
Exactly when was it found lacking? It is at least as old the .45 and has been in far more wars, killed multitudes more people, survived longer, continued in extreme popularity, and has yet to be proven any less effective than anything else.
Look at all a the data and prove to me where it has been found lacking.
I like the .40, .357 Sig and others, but I really think that they are all about hype.
They all expand about the same, all penetrate about the same, so where is the difference? In the kinetic energy? Is the little difference in KE really a difference in effect if they penetrate and expand the same?
Who says any work any better than the others? Fackler? S&M? Police agencies? S&M say they are all about the same according to street results. Fackler says they are about the same according to lab tests.
Most LEAs that switched from the 9mm did so not because they did not like the caliber, but because they did not like the old 147gr bullet and they were offered free guns if they bought .40's. Many LEAs are perfectly happy with the 9mm and can cite enormous success with it.
Personally, I think the .40 and all the others are all about hype. I like the .357 Sig a little better because of it's flat shooting and high energy, but any of these are not much better than a 9mm. But, the magazines, manufacturers, bullet makers etc would all like you to think so because they make lots of money of it all.
[This message has been edited by Red Bull (edited May 25, 2000).]
Huh?
"Initially" as in like 1903?
Exactly when was it found lacking? It is at least as old the .45 and has been in far more wars, killed multitudes more people, survived longer, continued in extreme popularity, and has yet to be proven any less effective than anything else.
Look at all a the data and prove to me where it has been found lacking.
I like the .40, .357 Sig and others, but I really think that they are all about hype.
They all expand about the same, all penetrate about the same, so where is the difference? In the kinetic energy? Is the little difference in KE really a difference in effect if they penetrate and expand the same?
Who says any work any better than the others? Fackler? S&M? Police agencies? S&M say they are all about the same according to street results. Fackler says they are about the same according to lab tests.
Most LEAs that switched from the 9mm did so not because they did not like the caliber, but because they did not like the old 147gr bullet and they were offered free guns if they bought .40's. Many LEAs are perfectly happy with the 9mm and can cite enormous success with it.
Personally, I think the .40 and all the others are all about hype. I like the .357 Sig a little better because of it's flat shooting and high energy, but any of these are not much better than a 9mm. But, the magazines, manufacturers, bullet makers etc would all like you to think so because they make lots of money of it all.
[This message has been edited by Red Bull (edited May 25, 2000).]
BrokenArrow
New member
124 9mm Gold Dot +P from 226 in gel after cloth:
20/.54
125 357 SIG GD: 19/.54
155 40S&W: 18/.58
200 +P 45 ACP (P220): 18.8/.55
230 GD (1911): 18.8/.59
OTOH, the 147 +P+ 38 Special HS, the 147 9mm HS, the Speer/Fed 125 357 SIG all do about the same in exp/pen in the FBI test series, so maybe energy does mean something cuzz I sure don't consider them equal.
------------------
>>>>---->
20/.54
125 357 SIG GD: 19/.54
155 40S&W: 18/.58
200 +P 45 ACP (P220): 18.8/.55
230 GD (1911): 18.8/.59
OTOH, the 147 +P+ 38 Special HS, the 147 9mm HS, the Speer/Fed 125 357 SIG all do about the same in exp/pen in the FBI test series, so maybe energy does mean something cuzz I sure don't consider them equal.
------------------
>>>>---->