Resurrecting the .357 SIG vs .40 thread

M

MeekAndMild

New member
Hello,
I thought to add a couple of links I stumbled upon to this thread:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50941&highlight=357+sig

The first is a copy of the 1998 Marv Stenhammar FAQ describing the case, pressures and ballistic considerations:
http://www.gunnery.net/sig/allnew357.html

The second is a copy of the Joe D'Alessandro discussion about headspace and reliability:
http://www.gunnery.net/sig/allnew357.html


Then there is Peter Jordan's discussion of the FBI tests:
http://www.gunnery.net/sig/fbitests.html

All the dithering here is leading to a question (each part of which is arguable). Is the 357 SIG worth the extra pressure, more finicky reloading parameters and risks of overpenetration for the better accuracy, flatter trajectory and better variety of available reload bullets versus the .40?

Especially considering use in a small pistol like a P239 where patterns might be wider anyway than in a bigger pistol. Neither caliber is exactly what you would call a mouse gun load.
 
I wouldn't want to stand in front of either. Some say that the biggest advantage of the 357 Sig is that the bottlenecked cartridge feeds more reliably.
 
The 357. sig is awesome and so fun to shoot. I have been looking for a Sig p226 in .357 sig but none was available so I gave it up. The only downside to it is the price of ammo.
 
The terminal performance may be a wash but the .357 Sig kicks the snot out of the .40 when it comes to accuracy (in my experience, anyway). And if penetration-penetration-penetration is all the rage, the .357 Sig fits the bill. On a side note, I've never understood why a lot of the same people who poo-pah the .357 Sig then turn around and extoll the virtues of the .38 Super. Yeah, the .38 Super is a cool round, but the .357 Sig is more powerful (in most factory loadings), more accurate (in anything short of a race gun), can be chambered in a more compact package and is more reliable.

I do agree about the ammo availability, however. Defense loads are easier to find these days but decent target ammo is still scarce.
 
From this thread: How to interpret FBI data? and the FBI data, it is not clear to me that 357SIG (a 125gr GD) has significantly more penetration than some .40, .45, or even 9x19 loads.

The particular bullet performance seems to overshadow the differences in caliber. I am also not convinced that kinetic energy ("power") has any particular relation to terminal ballistics in pistol rounds. Heavier bullets are generally required for trucking on through big bones and stuff. Judging by penetration or wound volume, even some 9x19 loads surpass 357SIG.

But anyway, here are the advantages of 357SIG, as I see them:
  • flatter trajectory, but does this matter in a handgun?
  • bottleneck cartridge more reliable in theory
  • you'll likely have the loudest and largest muzzle blast at the range
  • people will look at your brass and ask, "WTF is this?"
  • "shorter" but "sharper" recoil impulse. this is subjective
  • many people have reported 357SIG being more inherently accurate than .40. I don't know if this is true or false, but many people think so.

Disadvantages of 357SIG as I see them:
  • bullet set-back is more common than other pistol cartridges
  • muzzle blast and extra-loud report can make flinching worse
  • doesn't have terminal ballistics dramatically better than .40, or even 9x19 in some cases (see FBI data arguments elsewhere)
  • not all .40 hi-caps can reliably feed .357SIG, but many can.

Advantages of .40 in my opinion:
  • ammo is cheaper
  • much larger selection of both practice and "carry" ammo, in terms of manufacturers, and bullet weight
  • there exist .40 defense loads that have arguably better terminal ballistics than the 357SIG 125gr GD.
  • much easier to reload

The neat thing is that most .357SIG or .40SW guns can be switched to the other by simply a barrel change, so you can easily shoot both if your heart desires.

I shoot both in my Glock 32 (came in .357SIG; I bought a factory Glock 23 barrel for $120). My slow-fire scores are better with the .40 simply because I can manage the recoil and blast better. That result is purely subjective. Take better marksmanship and better terminal ballistics (I carry Proload GD's in all calibers, for comparison purposes), and I choose the .40 for general use.

If you look at sectional density in different pistol calibers:

around 1450 gr/sqin: 230gr .45, 180gr .40, 147gr 9mm.
around 1250 gr/sqin: 200gr .45, 155gr .40, 124gr 9mm.
around 1100 gr/sqin: 185gr .45, 135gr .40, 115gr 9mm.

Since the heavier .40 and .45 bullets seem to be better performers than the lighter ones, based on the FBI data, it would be interesting to see a 140 - 150gr 357SIG load. I think Proload is coming out with one soon. It would match the sectional density of a 230gr .45 or a 180gr .40.

-z
 
The 357. sig is awesome and so fun to shoot. I have been looking for a Sig p226 in .357 sig but none was available so I gave it up. The only downside to it is the price of ammo.
Click to expand...

That's why I have been thinking of picking up a 226 in .40, and then buying a .357 SIG barrel (or vice versa). I can shot .40 until the .357 SIG ammo prices come down.

The only bad news with this strategy is that the cool 226 prices are for police re-furbished 9mm.

Mike P. Wagner
 
How's about .357 SIG vs. .40 *&* vs. .38 super vs. .357 Mag ?
my local gunshop has .357 Mag semi-auto pistol and .38 super Colt 1991A1, and of course, .357 SIG from SIG and .40 pistols,
and I am really thinking about .38 super or .357 magnum,
thanks
 
Looking up some of the discussion I have some other questions:

Wouldn't a .357 magnum would require too long a slide movement for most actions? Is there any significant difference between .38 super+P and NATO spec 9x19?

But then, from the FBI data is there really any significant difference in either .357Sig or .40 versus 9x19?

You guys seem to have a consensus about muzzle flash and recoil issues, considering that I have been looking at a P239. (I wouldn't even consider a glock 33 or 27 due to my tendancy to limp wrist sometimes when shooting left handed.)

So in this little gun (3.6 inch barrel, 27.4 ounces) do you think the .357 SIG tradeoff versus .40 is worth it? In fact is the tradoff versus 9x19 worth it in a small framed gun? It would be a lot easier to handle in a P226, considering the heavier weight and longer barrel.

http://www.gunnery.net/sig/239.html
 
I have a Taurus PT101. I understand that it can be easily converted to shoot .357 Sig cartridges for about $60. Would I need a different recoil spring installed or will the spring that comes with it suffice?
 
Final decision was to go with .40 cal due to the following:

1) Ease of reloading and fewer potential headspace problems.

2) Terminal velocity may be better, pressures and blast effect are lower. Blast effect is important as our range has wooden partitions and I like to be polite as possible there.

3) With my tremor accuracy is not a deciding factor. I can hit a dinner plate at 25 yards, doesn't matter if it is with a target pistol or a clunker.

4) Of the available Sigs at my local range the one with the best trigger and hand fit was the .40. It was a SIG Pro however rather than the 239 but isn't that much larger.

5) My brother in law the engineer, despite his fascination with Glock (we can't all be perfect), recommends .40 over the .357 SIG due to a multitude of obscure reasons related to #2.
 
All the dithering here is leading to a question (each part of which is arguable). Is the 357 SIG worth the extra pressure, more finicky reloading parameters and risks of overpenetration for the better accuracy, flatter trajectory and better variety of available reload bullets versus the .40?

Penitration is not an issue if comparable bullets are used. My 125 grain ranger T loads go 11.5 inches in Gelatin a bit less than the 180 grain 40 loads. The sig is overall more powerfull as well as the other advantages you listed. Reloading for this round is not hard at all.
PAT
 
PREFER vs NEED

I 'like' the 357 SIG cartridge better than the 40; I could give a rats a$$ on which I'd be forced to carry as I prefer the 9x19, 45ACP, and 41AE.

357 SIG for L.E. though.......
 
You can quote numbers and statistics till you're blue in the face; what I count on is actually shooting the guns.

My preference depends on the size weapon I want to carry. I found the .357sig to be too much muscle in a SigPro, a Glock compact, and the HK USPc. I found it to be a perfect fit for the Sig P226.

In my hand, with my skills, I found that the .357sig needed the heavier frame and slide of the P-226 to be 'manageable' to the degree that I felt comfortable with the caliber.

In a compact, I chose the HK USPc in .40S&W because my follow up shots came more quickly and with more precision.

If I'm just shooting targets at 15-25 yards, gimme the .357sig, please. I'f I'm packing a compact, polymer framed gun concealed on my hip, make mine a .40.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top