Is the 357sig fading into obscurity?

"...can/should order a .357Sig barrel and mag for my Glock 20..." Don't know about 'should', but you can. Buying as much brass as you can afford at the same time makes the ammo's future issue go away. Able to shoot .41 AE out of my BHP for that reason.
The Long Wolf guys say it uses regular 10mm mags. Might need a different recoil spring. Nothing about springs on the Long Wolf site though.
 
many moons ago I purchased the Taurus 957 (357 sig). Ported slide and barrel. De-cocker. believe it's SA/DA. real nice gun that has operated flawlessly.
I had an uncle in LE and when they went away from 357 sig he have me several boxes of ammo.
I bought it thinking it could be in the CCW rotation, but it's a bit large. However now that we're open carrying, several of the larger handguns that never saw CCW duty will probably get a little time. I'll still conceal "as best I can".
 
357sig fired from a glock 20 would be a real pleasure to shoot. I was pretty deep into making my own 357sig ammo for a while. Found crazy cheap once fired brass, bought a few thousand cases and got after it.
 
Got a good deal on a .357Sig barrel for my Glock 27 last year. Only recently acquired ammo for it. Was at the range playing on the dueling tree. Warmed up with some 9mm reloads/40-9 barrel, then stock .40, then tried the .357 Sigs.

First shot revealed that the .357's had a strange recoil and that it is very loud. The recoil was nothing like I was expecting. Didn't feel as harsh as .40. I was able to run the tree plates almost as fast as I could with my medium 9mm reloads. The .357 can make the leaves on the tree shake. I personally enjoyed shooting those. Just wish I had more of the ammo to play with.
 
FlySubCompact said:
Got a good deal on a .357Sig barrel for my Glock 27 last year. Only recently acquired ammo for it. Was at the range playing on the dueling tree. Warmed up with some 9mm reloads/40-9 barrel, then stock .40, then tried the .357 Sigs.



First shot revealed that the .357's had a strange recoil and that it is very loud. The recoil was nothing like I was expecting. Didn't feel as harsh as .40. I was able to run the tree plates almost as fast as I could with my medium 9mm reloads. The .357 can make the leaves on the tree shake. I personally enjoyed shooting those. Just wish I had more of the ammo to play with.
Click to expand...


I love shooting 357 SIG, but my God the noise.
 
Yes, but how often does a person actually need that?

Although the news media would like to portray our modern situation as such, we don't live in Dodge City.
Click to expand...
^wow this statement is sounding a lot like "you don't need hi-cap mags/assault weapons" argument.
 
I think flysubcompact has it. Why are people moving away from 40? I think it's the recoil. The only other thing would be capacity, and I don't think that's it. If you agree people are moving away from 40, and it's because of recoil, then the question becomes what's the best 9ish caliber and 357sig enters the discussion. If recoil was the same as 40, no reason to go to it, if it's about the same as 9, I'd seriously consider it if it was available in the gun I was looking at and I think others would too. Cost minded would stay w 9 though.

Like t.o.Heir, I had a 41ae, wish that round was a success. The Betamax of 40 cal IMO. It would be great to have an inexpensive shooter in 9 that I could get maybe a little more out of for sd, though I think 9 is sufficient. Plus I like having 2 guns for virtually the price of a barrel.
 
Is there truly any difference in utility between the .357 SIG and the .45/.38 from the 60s?
Click to expand...
^gyvel, if you are refering to the 38/45 Clerke, then yes there is, the 38/45 Clerke requires a 45 acp sized frame, where as the 357sig was designed to be used in a 9mm sized frame, which was intended so that those with small/short hands could have 125gr 1450fps 357 mag out a 4" barrel performance in a semi-auto.
 
I think flysubcompact has it. Why are people moving away from 40? I think it's the recoil. The only other thing would be capacity, and I don't think that's it. If you agree people are moving away from 40, and it's because of recoil, then the question becomes what's the best 9ish caliber and 357sig enters the discussion. If recoil was the same as 40, no reason to go to it, if it's about the same as 9, I'd seriously consider it if it was available in the gun I was looking at and I think others would too. Cost minded would stay w 9 though.

Like t.o.Heir, I had a 41ae, wish that round was a success. The Betamax of 40 cal IMO.
Click to expand...
^the funny thing is 1stmar, is my XD357 has less felt recoil than my SW9VE, and i shoot factory 115gr. 9mms out of it. also i wish the 41AE was more popular too,i always wanted a original Jericho 941(with all 3 barrels, 41AE, 9mmAE, and 9mm para) at least it's a true .41 cal, not a 10mm/40 cal.
 
Last edited:
Never shot a 357sig so hard to say if it's softer than 9 or if that's due to ergonomics of the xd vs smith.
 
^wow this statement is sounding a lot like "you don't need hi-cap mags/assault weapons" argument.
Click to expand...

It's nothing of the sort. The cartridge was "invented" to fill some kind of niche, whether artificially created or not.
 
^gyvel, if you are refering to the 38/45 Clerke, then yes there is, the 38/45 Clerke requires a 45 acp sized frame, where as the 357sig was designed to be used in a 9mm sized frame, which was intended so that those with small/short hands could have 125gr 1450fps 357 mag out a 4" barrel performance in a semi-auto.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what I was referring to. They have a commonality in that both were designed to be used on an existing frame, both were designed to improve feeding, and both were attempts to get the performance of some other cartridge. In the case of the 45/38, it was .38 Super performance.

The concepts are the same, hence, the utility is basically the same

The 45/38 is a memory now, and I predict that the .357 SIG will follow the same path. In fact, in a box of stuff I inherited, I had a barrel and dies for the 45/38 which I gave to a friend of mine.

That said, if it is something that a person likes to shoot, then so be it. It's just not going to take the world by storm, and will most likely exit "...not with a bang, but a whimper."

As always, YMMV.
 
They have a commonality in that both were designed to be used on an existing frame...
Click to expand...
True, but there are significant differences. Specifically, the 9mm is the most common autopistol cartridge purchased by civilians in the U.S. and the .40S&W is the most common law enforcement autopistol cartridge in the U.S. The .357SIG was designed to fit into that frame size AND offer improved performance over either of the other two common cartridges. In other words, it exploited the same frame size as two of the most common autopistol cartridges on the market.

I think that many .45ACP shooters would argue that the 38/45 didn't offer improved performance over the native cartridge for the frame it was intended for.
... both were designed to improve feeding...
Click to expand...
I remember people claiming that the .357SIG would provide reliable feeding--a common claim that is made of virtually all bottlenecked autopistol cartridges, but I don't remember anyone complaining that the .40S&W wouldn't feed reliably and that the .357SIG was intended to remedy that situation.
The 45/38 is a memory now, and I predict that the .357 SIG will follow the same path. In fact, in a box of stuff I inherited, I had a barrel and dies for the 45/38 which I gave to a friend of mine.
Click to expand...
Was there ever even a single factory production firearm chambered in the 38/45? How many mainstream ammo manufacturers ever sold factory ammo in that caliber? I think that if for no other reason than the .357SIG was (and still is) produced by a number of ammo manufacturers and that a number of major manufacturers did (and still do) produce firearms in that caliber is more than enough reason to believe that the .357 SIG won't follow the same path as a rather obscure wildcat cartridge.

I don't believe it's ever going to be mainstream, but it's not going anywhere soon.
 
In my opinion - .357 Sig is a niche caliber.../ and its not going to gain in popularity in my view over the near or long run.

Balistically there are pros and cons to it ....and while, like the 10mm, it has a following ...its peak in popularity has probably passed / and so has the 10mm in my opinion.

I would not base any weapon purchase on availability of ammo at wal-mart.../ but everyone should buy what they want...
 
Never had a 357SIG and don't know anyone that does, quite frankly. I never see that brass at the ranges I shoot at and, since it has a reputation of being difficult to reload, I doubt much is picked up. I think it served a purpose when some law inforcement folks were looking to put more HP in a typical 9mm frame and it does that. It comes at the expense of wearing those frames out much quicker though. Like the 45GAP, it will always be a boutique round like the GAP.
It really didn't do much more than the 80year old 38Super, which was more versatile in bullet weight and a much better round to reload and fed like silk in a 1911 frame.
 
I had a Glock 32 I liked a ton other than the ammo cost and the round was really hard on the gun. I went back to carrying my Glock 19 and I'm perfectly fine with the loss of performance. I think the 147gr HST does a good job defeating barriers to get me close to what I liked about the 357SIG to begin with.

Manufacturers have done some pretty great things with the 9mm these days so it's easier to justify.
 
The 357 Sig is one of my favorite carry cartridges. You can say what you want but in actual shootings it works VERY well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top