Which caliber do you guys like better.....357sig or 40 ??
- Thread starter vyper005
- Start date
- Status
David Scott
New member
Performance on target is about the same... go for the cheaper ammo. That means .40.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AndABeer:
I have both so I don't have to choose.[/quote]Okay, but which one would you pick up if some lunatic decided to kick in your front door (assuming you were in the process of cleaning all of your other weapons and they were all disassemblied
except for the .40S&W and the .357SIG)?
[This message has been edited by FUD (edited October 03, 2000).]
I have both so I don't have to choose.[/quote]Okay, but which one would you pick up if some lunatic decided to kick in your front door (assuming you were in the process of cleaning all of your other weapons and they were all disassemblied
except for the .40S&W and the .357SIG)?[This message has been edited by FUD (edited October 03, 2000).]
The .40 because it starts out bigger and to me the .357Sig is just a fast-overpriced 9mm. It's a fad. But aren't they all when they're introduced?
just MHO,
Ben
------------------
Almost Online IM: BenK911
ICQ # 53788523
"Gun Control Is Being Able To Hit Your Target"
Different, just like everyone else. (Ben Original)
[This message has been edited by Ben (edited October 03, 2000).]
just MHO,
Ben
------------------
Almost Online IM: BenK911
ICQ # 53788523
"Gun Control Is Being Able To Hit Your Target"
Different, just like everyone else. (Ben Original)
[This message has been edited by Ben (edited October 03, 2000).]
I can now weigh in on this never ending debate with a little more authority.
Shooting .357 Sig side by side with .40 Smith, I was left in no doubt that the .40 cartridge is far more user friendly and the whole penetration/velocity/weight issue pales into insignificance. .357 Sig had significantly more flash, report and recoil (I know it isn't supposed to but for me it did) than the .40 round, it just wasn't pleasant to shoot, the pressures it generates are just too high for me. Like I said, it's just my impression.
Mike H
Shooting .357 Sig side by side with .40 Smith, I was left in no doubt that the .40 cartridge is far more user friendly and the whole penetration/velocity/weight issue pales into insignificance. .357 Sig had significantly more flash, report and recoil (I know it isn't supposed to but for me it did) than the .40 round, it just wasn't pleasant to shoot, the pressures it generates are just too high for me. Like I said, it's just my impression.
Mike H
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FUD:
except for the .40S&W and the .357SIG)?
[/QUOTE]
Not that easy. For every pistol I have in .40 I have a .357 barrel and for the one pistol I bought in .357 I have a .40 barrel. I have recently rethought my aversion to .40 and have determined for myself that of the major defense calibers (9, .357, .40, 10mm, .45) there is no real difference in effectiveness among the top loads. The argument then becomes accuracy which I believe is strictly dependant on the firearm and the shooter not caliber. The argument then becomes capacity. Which I guess the .357 wins because I can jam one more round of .357 in my G23 and G22 mags (14 and 16 rounds respectively) than I can .40. So I guess I'll change my previous smart ass answer to .357.
Okay, but which one would you pick up if some lunatic decided to kick in your front door (assuming you were in the process of cleaning all of your other weapons and they were all disassemblied
except for the .40S&W and the .357SIG)?[/QUOTE]
Not that easy. For every pistol I have in .40 I have a .357 barrel and for the one pistol I bought in .357 I have a .40 barrel. I have recently rethought my aversion to .40 and have determined for myself that of the major defense calibers (9, .357, .40, 10mm, .45) there is no real difference in effectiveness among the top loads. The argument then becomes accuracy which I believe is strictly dependant on the firearm and the shooter not caliber. The argument then becomes capacity. Which I guess the .357 wins because I can jam one more round of .357 in my G23 and G22 mags (14 and 16 rounds respectively) than I can .40. So I guess I'll change my previous smart ass answer to .357.
There just arent enough benefits for the .357 to sway me over to it. I have a G27 with an after market barrel in .357 so I know a little about both.
I would defineatly chose the .40 over the .357sig without thinking twice.
If you ever had to shoot the .357sig indoors you would be nearly deaf by the blast and blinded by the muzzle flash. Those are two serious factors to take into consideration for a self deffence gun. The .40 is easyer to control IMHO, not much harder of a recoil just a more uncontrolable recoil (does that make sence?) for the .357.
So, if somebody kicked in my front door I would certainly be reaching for the .40 it just makes more sence.
Plus its cheaper, more of it on the shelves.
Theres my two cents.
~Jason
I would defineatly chose the .40 over the .357sig without thinking twice.
If you ever had to shoot the .357sig indoors you would be nearly deaf by the blast and blinded by the muzzle flash. Those are two serious factors to take into consideration for a self deffence gun. The .40 is easyer to control IMHO, not much harder of a recoil just a more uncontrolable recoil (does that make sence?) for the .357.
So, if somebody kicked in my front door I would certainly be reaching for the .40 it just makes more sence.
Plus its cheaper, more of it on the shelves.
Theres my two cents.
~Jason
I've been a Navy SEAL with team 6 for 78 years. I once fought krauts who carried the sissy SIG round. Every one of them was blinded by the flash of their Sigs. My trusty American made Glock 23 in 40 was silent, flashless, and could blow a man clear out of his shoes at 5000 yards. In fact, I once shot down a SR-71 piloted by German ace Colonel Tomb. The 357 SIG round is so pathetic that I once took 12 rounds to the gonads without a scratch while wearing nothing but a pair of Navy issue green speedos.
GHB
GHB
P
PreserveFreedom
Guest
40S&W for sure, but it is nice to be able to swap barrels and shoot either. 357 Sig fits in where you want a smaller projectile at a higher velocity, like when you need penetration more than knockdown power.
40 S&W. Though I will feel quite adequately protected with a 357 Sig, it is pretty much a one note wonder (125 grain, not much else) that has a lot of noise and flash. For self defense purposes, the 40 is the better in several ways: reasonable flash and blast, good penetration, good expansion, a small package, a wide range of loads (135 gr. to 180 gr.) That said, in the long term, I want to get a 357 Sig barrel for my USP 40.
suckersrus
New member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gary H:
I had problems with Triton .357 Sig bullet recession. I could physically rotate the bullet. It happened in four of forty rounds. That scared me. I got rid of the gun.[/quote]
You had trouble with your bullets so you got rid of your gun?
------------------
Wear your PFD
I had problems with Triton .357 Sig bullet recession. I could physically rotate the bullet. It happened in four of forty rounds. That scared me. I got rid of the gun.[/quote]
You had trouble with your bullets so you got rid of your gun?
------------------
Wear your PFD
The 357 sig can do everything better than the 40. The biggest advantage is accuracy. Most 40's shoot about 20 to 100 % larger groups than the 357 sig in the same gun. The 357 sig also has a power advantage and a hard target penitration advantage and a reliablitity advantage.
PAT
------------------
I intend to go into harms way.
PAT
------------------
I intend to go into harms way.
Suckersrus:
Bullet recession is a known problem with this design in that there is a short area of bullet contact within the neck. No, that wasn't the only reason. I know that this issue is now being addressed my most of the manufacturers. I purchased a P7M8, which occupied the same nitch as the Glock 33. For me, the Glock was not as accurate and my follow-up shots were slower. I decided to keep the M8 and sell the Glock. I gave up some firepower, but gained greater confidence in my ability to defend myself. I suspect that a larger, heaver gun might have been easier for me to control.
Bullet recession is a known problem with this design in that there is a short area of bullet contact within the neck. No, that wasn't the only reason. I know that this issue is now being addressed my most of the manufacturers. I purchased a P7M8, which occupied the same nitch as the Glock 33. For me, the Glock was not as accurate and my follow-up shots were slower. I decided to keep the M8 and sell the Glock. I gave up some firepower, but gained greater confidence in my ability to defend myself. I suspect that a larger, heaver gun might have been easier for me to control.
- Status