Low Velocity 357 SIG Rounds = 9mm Luger Velocity

P

petej88

New member
When talking about the 357 SIG, usually people discuss maximum ft/lbs of energy, maximum velocities, bullet weight retention, expansion, and other heavy steroid things :) I'd like to take another tact and talk about low velocity 357 SIG rounds that equal the "Standard" 9mm Luger rounds. I feel that this is an important arena for the ammo companies to eventually get into, which would help show the true flexibility of this cartridge, and help allure more people into using this cartridge.

I did a quick low velocity test recently. Unfortunately, it was later in the day and I only got one chronograph reading before it stopped working due to lack of light. I'll be doing a more definitive low and high velocity test when I get my Steyr M357, which is coming out in November, hopefully.

What I used for the test:

Glock 23 with a 357 SIG Jarvis barrel --- 4".
Hodgdon Universal Powder --- maximum 5.8 grains.
Starline brass (already been used a few times --- not new).
Winchester primers.
West Coast plated 124 grain flat point bullets --- excellent quality.
Corbin Cannelure Tool --- used to cut a mild groove into the plated bullet so a Lee or RCBS crimper can firmly grab the bullet, in addition to the snug neck tension. Some companies are now using a sealant or glue to hold 357 SIG bullets in place. I suppose they could also use a commercial grade Corbin Cannelure Tool. Both methods work great.

Results:

1. 1150 fps --- power factor of 142, which is more than enough to compete successfully in IPSC Minor or IDPA.
2. One ragged hole at 21 feet.
3. Very accurate and consistent.
4. Very clean burning.
5. Felt recoil was little more than a .22, which is what a standard 9mm Luger feels like, right :) I could shoot this stuff all day without getting tired.
6. No major blast or flash like the full power magnum rounds. This is perfect for those that are not interested in meeting Mr Blast Flasher and who are not interested in feeling the shock wave after each trigger pull :) Folks, this is true flexibility.
7. I actually called Hodgdon to make sure 5.8 grains is the max value for Universal, and they said, "Yes". Apparently, Universal has some interesting characteristics when powering the 357 SIG, which happens to be perfect for low end rounds. On the other hand, using Universal to power 180 grain .40 S&W rounds can easily kick butt up to 1050 fps with a 4" Steyr M40 barrel.
8. The extracted brass shot neatly to the side aprox. 4 to 5 ft.
9. The brass diameter only expanded aprox 1/1000" to 2/1000". This would increase case life substantially.
10. The slide action for the 4" barreled Glock 23 worked fine with this loading. Heavier and/or longer slides may or may not need a lighter spring, possibly.

Summary:

Just as a 357 Magnum revolver can fire full power loads or mellow 38 Special loads, so it is that a 357 SIG can fire full power magnum loads or standard 9mm Luger loads. So help spread the word and contact your favorite ammo companies so they can be the first on the block to come out with some light 357 SIG loads to round out the selection. I've proven that it's very easy to do with off-the-shelf standard products.

Cheers,
Pete
http://home.earthlink.net/~petej55
 
Why not a 9mm to start with with more capacity and cheaper (free on the ground at most ranges) brass?
 
Some people just don't get it :) The purpose once again is to have 357 SIG functionality from standard 9mm Luger levels to maximum power magnum levels. This is something that a 9 can never do. This would be similar to a 357 Magnum revolver being able to shoot light .38 loads or full power magnum loads.
 
I think it makes some sense, but unlike the case with the .38 Special/.357 Magnum, you might need some way to easily tell the difference between the hot .357 Sig and the milder .357 Sig ammo.

Maybe they should use a "-P" headstamp. :)

I got to fire a .357 Sig for the first time this weekend (a Glock 35 with a KKM barrel) and the analogy between the 9mm/.357Sig and the .38Special/.357Mag is not a bad one, in my admittedly limited experience opinion.

Pete, you seem to be a fan of the Steyr's and I think they are pretty neat too. On my way back from my weekend shooting I stopped in at a gun shop and saw a "almost new" M9 for $419 (or was it $479?). I'm wondering if I should pursue it. I bet it's a sale by somebody that probably couldn't stand the original trigger and didn't know about the upgrade.


[This message has been edited by HumpMan (edited September 11, 2000).]
 
Humpman,

I haven't shot the Steyr M9. But I've heard that it is very mellow to shoot. The trigger upgrade is awesome by the way, although some people do prefer the heavier 8 lb trigger pull.

I compared the Steyr M40 with the sigpro this weekend. The sigpro, off a bench, could not shoot any more accurately than the M40. This is good news because two different mag writers and I have found that the sigpro is about the most accurate .40 out there, although a Glock 35 can match it as well.

Actually, it's a good idea to label light and heavy loads. The .40 S&W world has some of the same issues :)

The main thing I've tried to emphasize is that it's really easy to make a 9mm Luger equivalent round. I did this because I was tired of being forced to compete in IPSC Minor with the niners barely pushing a power factor of 125 or so against my 190 factored 357 SIG :)

Not everyone likes to practice shooting 200 - 300 rounds of full power magnum rounds in a session. A light option would be nice from one or more ammo factories. I reload so I don't have to worry about it :)

------------------
http://home.earthlink.net/~petej55
 
Pete,

Thanks for the comments.

I think that in the .357 Magnum world, there are "medium power" loads as well as the full bore stuff, but for anything lower, they seem to just go to .38 Special. I don't know if the medium power .357 Magnum ammo is marked in any way special, though.

The .357 Sig is definitely an interesting cartridge. The bottleneck case seems to have both advantages and disadvantages. The shape may aid in reliable feeding, but isn't it harder to get reloading dies, and because of them being bottle-necked, they can't be carbide? And I understand the gripping surface of the case is pretty small, so bullet weight can't vary too much. In fact, is there much other than 125 gr. stuff in .357 Sig?

Have you seen how low you can go before you start to get cycling problems?


[This message has been edited by HumpMan (edited September 11, 2000).]
 
When I get my M357, I'll test how low I can get before cycling is an issue.

Regarding 357 SIG reloading: Actually I do have a Dillon Carbide Die Set, although I use an RCBS roll crimper (Lee crimpers work well also).

Reloading the 357 SIG is simple once you know how to do it.

As far as 9mm bullets that work for the 357 SIG, you just need to make sure that at the crimp point, you have a bearing surface of .355. I've seen bullet ranges between 115 and 150 for the 357 SIG. The best bullets tend to be short coned bullets instead of the ones with a gradual slope.

The neck is big enough to handle bullets. But in addition, some factories use a sealant or glue to hold the bullet. As a reloader, I use a Corbin cannelure groove which helps hold the bullet perfectly. It is a little rifle cartridge in most respects.

You can read my 357 SIG reloading info at my site below:

------------------
http://home.earthlink.net/~petej55

[This message has been edited by petej88 (edited September 11, 2000).]
 
Thanks, Pete, for the info.

Hate to be a pest, and especially one that really has no direct reloading experience, but I was under the impression that the .357 Sig shouldn't be roll crimped because it still headspaces on the case mouth. The article I read wondered why they didn't just use the shoulder, but supposedly the case mouth is still used for headspacing.
 
Actually, the shoulder and case mouth are both important for the 357 SIG :)

It's fairly easy to load "New" 357 SIG ammo to headspace on the case mouth. But for remanufactured ammo and for reloads, it's a completely different ballpark, especially regarding the safety issue of bullet setback. I would like to see SAAMI re-evaluate the 357 SIG so that ammo
companies, barrel companies, and firearms companies can agree how to handle this cartridge. This unity is necessary to make the 357 SIG a mature, safe cartridge for "ALL".

Even though the original stats from Federal state the 357 SIG headspaces on the case mouth, it should really be treated like a little bottlenecked rifle cartridge. SIGarms has stated it headspaces on the case mouth and shoulder, and has wisely made their pistols accordingly. Luckily, new 357
SIG pistols by other companies and barrel makers for that matter, appear to be copying SIGarms' lead.

To be precise, the shoulder sets headspace when referring to the MAXIMUM length. Just as with other autopistol rounds, the 357 SIG sets its MINIMUM headspace with the extractor. In other words, no matter how far back you set the shoulder or trim the case mouth, the case won't move forward any farther than the extractor will
allow it to.

I even know of a local ammo company that still resizes .40S&W brass into 357 SIG cases, which means the cases are too short. Yet, these reformed cases shoot perfectly and have been a popular low priced 357 SIG ammo alternative. However, I would not recommend using reformed .40 brass for reloading purposes --- the case is too weak for multiple 357 SIG firings.

Now, if the 357 SIG shoulder is out of place, the cartridge has severe problems. Go to the following site to read a good definitive study on the headspace issue with the 357 SIG: http://www.realguns.com/archives/001.htm
 
Again, thanks, Pete for the very informative link.

It always made sense to me to take advantage of the shoulder with the .357 SIG. The first article I read that stated that the .357 SIG still used the case mouth also indicated that the .30 Mauser may have been bottle-necked specifically to provide headspacing in the absence of a case rim.

I'm probably not right here, but it would seem to me that if the case is headspacing on the shoulder, then case deformation on firing would likely be less and this would make it easier to resize the case. If the shoulder played no role in headspacing, then I'd expect to see more effort in case resizing.
 
petej88, I agree with you. I am sorry that I didn't think of it myself. This is exactly what was done with the 10mm when the FBI had the ammo companies develop the 10mm 'lite' load. It adds control to the pistol as well as versitility. As you stated, it is similar to a .357 mag revolver. You can practice and 'plink' with the .357 SIG Lite (.38 Special) and use the full power for carry (.357 magnum). This is one of the reasons given for the failure of the .41 mag as a police round, the only loads available were the full power rounds approaching .44 mag ballistics. There is another analogy, the .44 Special and .44 mag. Few would argue a place for the .44 Special as a defensive round for those who are of big and slow school. The combination of available loads would offer a female, a small statured male, or a relatively inexperienced shooter the option of shooting a '9mm' to start out and then the opportunity to move up to a .357 SIG with a simple change of ammo, keeping the pistol that they have grown accustomed to. Capacity is a moot point at this time as all mags are restricted to 10 rounds, so be it a Glock 26 or a Glock 33 all you get is 10. I like the idea.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>This is exactly what was done with the 10mm when the FBI had the ammo companies develop the 10mm 'lite' load. [/quote]

And a very similar thing happened back in the 1870's with the .45 S&W (Schofield) and the .45 Colt. As I understand it, based on the comments of a black powder reloader, the Army was convinced to go with the SAA because the Colt could fire both .45 S&W and the more powerful .45 Colt. But they quickly found the .45 Colt too powerful and got it downloaded to be essentially the same as the .45 S&W. But by then it was too late to save the Model 3 Schofield from getting buried by the SAA. Had the Army more quickly decided that lower power ammunition was acceptable, the Model 3 Schofield might have been the "gun that won the west."

Fascinating how history repeats itself.
 
I will talk to them in January. Corbon and Triton probably wouldn't be interested, but Federal might be. Say a 125gr HP at 1100 fps and a 115 at 1250. About a 9mm +P and Winchester could offer a Winclean 125gr FML around 1000 fps as a target load.
 
Triton is going to be releasing a 357 SIG 135 grain load at 980 fps. It will be under the Hi-Master line of ammunition. The 357 SIG load will mirror the 9mm load developed for our shooting team.

Fernando
 
I vote that the "lighter load" be called a .38Sig Special. Then the mirror of the .357Mag will be complete.

The .357Sig will match the .357Mag.
The .38Sig Special will match the .38 Special.

I have shot .357Mag's that I ripped a little of the webbing on my hand (ouch!) and I have shot some lighter stuff, and I have shot .38Specials. There are times I want to be shooting the Hammer of Thor at someone, and there are times when I want just some light target practice, the .357Sig can do both, and that is great.

Thanks Pete. You seem to be the poster child for Steyrs and .357Sigs. Together, I'm sure they make a vicious combo. Let us know the day you get your M357.

Albert
 
As a fan of the .357 Sig as well as others like the 10mm, I knew this would happen. They always introduce a new cartridge at full power to gain a following, and then they download it because people whine that it is too powerful. This happens again and again with everything from the .357 Mag to the 10mm to even the .40 already and the .45 Super and many others. I don't get it. Makes me appreciate just staying with the .45 and the occasional 9mm.
Just like with the 10mm and .357 Mag and others, it will not surprise me that in years to come it will be very difficult to find true full power loads, because the downloads will prove so popular.

Why I would go through all the trouble to pay for and find reduced .357 Sig ammo when I already had a 9mm is beyond me.
Truth be told, the 9mm can safely be taken to .357 Sig velocities anyway. No, it will not be within SAAMI spec, but trust me, it can easily and safely do it in modern guns, and I know people that regularly do.

When the .357 Sig first came out, it was a 125gr bullet at 1350fps and everyone yawned. They said "why get a new gun to do that, when I already have 9mm +P?". So, the ammo companies bumped up the speed by 100 fps so that now we have a 125gr bullet at 1450fps out of a midsized gun. And now....people are asking for reduced loads. I just don't get it. Seems like we go in circles, and the only thing that happened is that they tricked me into buying another gun in a new caliber, that ends up doing the same thing as the stuff we already have. That's it, I am selling everything but my .45's and 9mm's. (Okay, mabe not, but I am tempted to) ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top