Sig .357 and .357 question

M

MikeGoob

New member
one of the famous characteristics of the .357 revolver round is the debilitating VOLUME of the bang. Something that some people consider when choosing a caliber.

Just in terms of decibels: is the Sig .357 the same?
 
.357 mag is more 'permanent damage' loud than a 9mm or 45 even.

edit: yep this list--interesting

140 Jet engine at takeoff
152 .22 pistol
156 12 gauge shotgun
157 .45 ACP pistol
160 9mm pistol
164 .357 Magnum revolver

And it still doesnt compare 357 sig with 357 mag
 
That's true, sort of, but IMHO it's very similar to the caliber argument.


If someone is going to shoot you through the heart, would you rather it was a 9mm or a 45acp? If you're going to go deaf from muzzle blast, would you rather it was a 9mm, 357sig or 357mag? Six of one, half dozen of the other.

You're not comparing "quiet" and "loud", you're comparing "Holy Crap that's loud!" with "Holy friggin' crap, that's damn loud!"
 
well I consider the practicality of shooting the gun for fun. I know and use hearing protection, but almost all other calibers will be more forgiving than the .357 if you forget to wear earplugs.
 
Well, I've seen several comments about the sig being the loudest round that people have ever fired and the G33 in particular being the loudest gun.

IMHO, the differences, while real, are insignificant. If you forget your hearing protection then it's going to hurt. In fact, the real effect will not even be the same from one person to another so trying to nail down what exactly will happen is not even possible. One person may have a few minutes of ringing from the effects of a unprotected 357mag shot while the person right next to him could be totally and permanently deafened.

We all make mistakes and I suppose we've all forgotten our hearing protection once or twice but I certainly wouldn't pick one caliber over another because of what might happen if I forget the plugs.


IMHO.
 
I have a .357 snub and I respect its power.

A friend of mine has suffered hearing damage from shooting his .357 outdoors! He figured it was fine to shoot it because he was in the open without plugs. Evidently he was close enough to a barn to get some echo or whatever deflected back at him.

I was just thinking it would be really nice if the sig .357 could simulate the .357 mag power and yet not be so loud. They seem similar and different in many ways.
 
A friend of mine has suffered hearing damage from shooting his .357 outdoors! He figured it was fine to shoot it because he was in the open without plugs. Evidently he was hear enough to a barn to get some echo or whatever deflected back at him.
Click to expand...

You don't need echo. Guns are plenty loud enough outdoors to damage hearing. ANY gun. The only gun I will even consider firing without protection, outdoors only, is a 22 rifle. Even those are too loud for such things but it doesn't "hurt". Anything else, indoors or outdoors, is MUCH too loud to use without protection.

I was just thinking it would be really nice if the sig .357 could simulate the .357 mag power and yet not be so loud. They seem similar and different in many ways.
Click to expand...

Hm, yes, that would be nice. Alas, it is not to be. My guess would be that the sig louder if anything. No substantial difference in any case.
 
I never wear ear protection while hunting. You want to know what's really fun? Shooting a 7mm-Mag without ear protection. Anyways, I no longer shoot that firearm for hunting, it's a bit much for white tail.
 
If someone is going to shoot you through the heart, would you rather it was a 9mm or a 45acp? If you're going to go deaf from muzzle blast, would you rather it was a 9mm, 357sig or 357mag? Six of one, half dozen of the other.

You're not comparing "quiet" and "loud", you're comparing "Holy Crap that's loud!" with "Holy friggin' crap, that's damn loud!"
Click to expand...


Well, the 45 acp is listed at 157 db and the 357mag is 164db.

It's "only" 7db, right? But the sounds power doubles with 3db, so the 357 is 5 TIMES louder than a 45acp.

Ouch!

It may not seem louder -- but that's because your ears were pegged out way way way before then. The difference after about 120-130db is in how much permanent damage you are doing.
 
I have both 357MAG's and 357SIG'G, and both with short and longer barrels, and the 357MAg's are louder, and flashier, but especially the snubbies. The 357SIG does have a bark, but its really not all that bad.


.357 Sig ammo was expensive, even before the run up.
Click to expand...
Before the run up, it was exactly the same as .40, and now just slightly higher. Its still cheaper than .45acp.
 
I used to shoot a Ruger semiautomatic 22 without hearing protection. No problem. Then, a friend let me shoot his 22 revolver. In the semiautomatic, much of the gas and noise is used by the gun to eject the casing, and chamber the next round. Not so with the revolver. I ended up with a serious headache that made me nauseous, not to mention the fact that it hurt right after I pulled the trigger.

I made the mistake of shooting a 243 without hearing protection... once. I got the worst headache of my life. So bad, it made me sick to my stomach for hours, and I had to go to work that night.

But, if you don’t feel you need hearing protection, then don’t use any. They are your ears, and I can’t hear a dang thing thru them anyway, so it’s mox nix to me. :D
 
"Automatic" hearing protection (for outdoors shooting) is a largely 1980s+ invention. Thirty plus years ago it was not uncommon (if stupid) for folks to regularly shoot (as in informal target and plinking) outdoors with all sorts of calibers and almost always .22--without hearing protection. A year ago I had my hearing tested for the first time in over thirty years...as a matter of a physical, not complaint of hearing loss. And I was actually surprised (at first) when the technician noted hi frequency loss in the left ear. I thought I had perfect hearing 'til he said I didn't raise my hand always when I should have...and certainly hope that loss does not increase measurably at least any time soon to the point of being noticeable--or worse. But, I'm a LH shooter and it started to make sense. When younger, other than the ubiquitous .22, most of my "plinking" was with an M-1 carbine and while, in actuality, it has a fairly sharp report--compared to a .22 certainly--it was still nothing like the whump of the family .30-30 and .270. Growing up in the 60s it was just something family, friends and just about everybody I knew did (outdoors) without--obviously--thinking about it, as bad/idiotic as that "sounds" now. (Though I never indulged, sounds a bit like smoking in days of yore too?) I remember doing this as recently with my then new Ruger .32 Mag in 1984. I usually had plugs handy for prolonged shooting but admit I shot a few occasionally without--and while ear ringing or muffling ensued for a half hour or so, didn't think that much about it beyond. (Wow, that was back when you could actually afford to do that stuff, and find a place for it!!). Now, with .22s, I'd at least put in the cheap, small foam plugs. Doesn't answer your Sig vs .357 Mag uestion either, but I'll echo others' comments and say "don't."
 
Re .357 vs .44 Mag: they're different, the '57 with more of a piercing crack "ka-bam!"--higher frequency, if that's a proper way to describe it. The .44 is more of a "ka-boom!" Don't get me wrong; neither "pleasant," but I'll take the .44 (generally) if having to listen to one without protection. Neither is recommended that way--ever, as a recreational shooting rule.
 
ears?

I've shot alot of different calibers from alot of different types of guns. THE worst was the old CCI lawman in .357, 110gr hollow point in a 3 inch Dan Wesson. Only foamies under my regular protection killed the report.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top