.357 SIG.....My New Favorite Round/Ammo

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
The .357Sig is yet another invention with no real pragmatic purpose.
Clearly, there is a wide range of choices when it comes to pistol ammo. Even within calibers. However, the one thing missing in most conventional pistols is a very flat shooting round, coupled with high capacity and excellent terminal ballistics. The 357Sig is one possible answer to the issue. I like it. The Five Seven was an attempt too. Consider today's needs of anti-terrorism. My beloved 7 round 1911 45ACP is not the right pistol for defending an auditorium against a band of terrorists. The need for laser like long range accuracy and round capacity exists.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
The .357Sig is yet another invention with no real pragmatic purpose.[...]
None of the tests I have seen with properly calibrated test criteria (such as those done by TNOutdoors9) with 125gr ammunition over penetrate--EXCEPT perhaps those from Underwood (which is not an ammunition I would use anyway). I would agree that 147gr ammunition tends to over penetrate, but that is not common offering for .357SIG. Recoil, yes, it can be a handful, but plenty of other calibers are too and with practice, it can be easily managed. Do I think a small framed/small handed person could easily master it? No, a 9MM would be a better choice. For me, handloading .357 SIG is the same price as a 9MM--I use the same bullets for 9MM that I use in my .357SIG, powder differences are negligible and primers are the same. With that said, do I think the 9MM is now the first choice of most civilians and most police forces? Yes, and with modern bullet construction, the 9MM performs very well. I have more 9MM pistols than any other caliber as a testament to that fact. From my point of view, and not to start a war about which is best, but the .45ACP does not bring any distinct advantage versus any other modern cartridge to the table. It has never been a favorite of mine, though I do have 1 pistol for it (Glock 30S). It is a slow moving bullet, has far less capacity than other calibers in the same sized pistol, is heavier to carry, can be more difficult to conceal, and the list goes on. I shoot and reload every popular handgun caliber out there (and some not so popular)--.22 Remington Jet, .380, 9MM, .38/.357, .357SIG, .40S&W, 10MM, .41, .44, .45ACP, .45LC, .480 Ruger to name a few. I find they all have their place and purpose--be it utility, sport, or fun, but there will always be a cartridge that most love and others do not. In the end, personal preference will trump most anything (including facts) and if the "stopping power" or "one-stop shot" fantasy could be dispelled, more objectivity could be applied to many situations (not saying that you are not objective--just a general statement).
 
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: AMC
I think the .357 sig is a horrible choice for the Air Marshalls but I agree that it is almost perfect for highway patrol units.
I agree. Why would they want all that penetration capability on a thin skinned Aluminum aircraft, with people all lined up single file in front of each other? Think pressurized fuselage, belly and wing fuel tanks, hydraulic lines and electrical wiring running everywhere. Engine nacelles, turbine blades spinning at high RPM.
I’m pretty sure they use frangible rounds. They do a lot of damage to human tissue, but turn to powder upon hitting metal.
 
Originally Posted By: Crispysea
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: AMC
I think the .357 sig is a horrible choice for the Air Marshalls but I agree that it is almost perfect for highway patrol units.
I agree. Why would they want all that penetration capability on a thin skinned Aluminum aircraft, with people all lined up single file in front of each other? Think pressurized fuselage, belly and wing fuel tanks, hydraulic lines and electrical wiring running everywhere. Engine nacelles, turbine blades spinning at high RPM.
I’m pretty sure they use frangible rounds. They do a lot of damage to human tissue, but turn to powder upon hitting metal.
They use Speer Gold Dot. Frangible ammo has no place in a lethal encounter. If a terrorist wants to kill hundreds or thousands of people, the FAMs need to be able to stop them immediately. So, good quality jacketed HP. Period. You're both overly concerned about the airplane. FAMS shoot very well. Most rounds will end up in the target. Those that don't will end up in passengers, luggage, seats, galley equipment or interior trim. To get to any wire bundle or hydraulic line, you have to go through all that stuff first. To hit a wing or engine? Um...the threat axis, and shots, wouldn't likely line up unless the FAM is struggling with someone in the row next to him. Even so, I would rather shut down an engine than let a terrorist gain control, or worse, destroy, my airplane. I can fly it just fine with an engine damaged, or hydraulic system failure. We train to that and airplanes are built with that redundancy. A bullet going through the skin, even pressurized, isn't the risk that Hollywood would have you believe. Even so, given the choice on how a terrorist would use an airplane (WMD), damage to the jet is better than thousands of deaths on the ground. It's not that the airplane is expendable, it's a question of likelihood vs. severity. In the cold calculus of risk analysis, Gold Dots, that decisively end a threat to thousands, are the best choice over a round of dubious effectiveness that might reduce the risk to the airplane.
 
Last edited:
Does anyone know in the history of the Air Marshall's Service, if there has ever been a shot fired by them in anger <span style="font-weight: bold">while aboard a U.S. aircraft?</span>
 
There are some advantages (or disadvantages) to one handgun round over another. A handgun round is still a compromise, in general. There are some notable exceptions (for specific reasons), the 5.7 being one. A modern high velocity rifle caliber is still MUCH more effective. The reason we carry handguns are for convenience reasons (convenient to law abidance, public perception, space, recoil, noise, pass through, and on and on). If we had no restrictions, I would carry an M1A Scout Squad, with the Underwood Controlled Chaos round, and a load out of 20 magazines. The .357 Sig, again, looks like a great handgun round. It is still a compromise.
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: Reddy45
It's a good round and I think the federal air marshals still use it for it's flat shooting characteristics.
Because there's a lot of bullet drop down the aisle of a typical air-liner?????? The .357Sig is yet another invention with no real pragmatic purpose. I've shot them; they're hot. (Not unlike my 10mm; yet another creation that falls by the wayside in terms of popularity and usefulness). Are they fun? Sure. Are they "needed" or practical? Nope. When you load a .357Sig or 10mm to their full potential, they are a handful and cannot be easily controlled by most. And the fear of over-penetration is real when loaded to full potential. So you can "download" them (less performance), but they you'd be right in same envelope of a good 9mm ... That was the initial story of the 10mm. Started out hot and wicked, but Agents could not handle them. So they tuned them down to a point where the longer case was not needed, and so S&W came out with the .40cal (short 10mm). The .357Sig is just a hot .40 with a smaller bullet; what's the point here? What is the goal? - 9mm will always be the cheap way to go; apples to apples (purchased or hand-loaded) it cannot be beat for the price, and performs VERY well today with the advances in guns and ammo. - .45ACP will always be a fav for the "bigger is better" crowd. - Anything in between those two is just an answer to a question no one really needed to ask.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
 
Originally Posted By: BlueOvalFitter
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
That is true. Last year, I wrote a thread about a seminar I attended where we had both classroom and range time to evaluate all manner of bullets and barriers. The old school mentality of "speed is best" is outdated. Today, the ammo companies can tune the loads to the applications. Statistically, there's no longer much, if any, benefit to a larger or faster round. The principle to adhere to is putting the rounds on target first and foremost. After that, it'a about tissue disruption. Super fast rounds have a tendency to over-penetrate (typically exit) before full expansion, or foul with barrier debris (clothing, etc). The goal is to get the most energy into the target, without exit. It's not just about bleeding; tissue shock also plays into this. The reality is that all the mainstream rounds (9mm, .40, .45) all can now be expected to perform the same, if they are properly designed and used in the correct gun. Propellants and bullets can now be matched to a "best fit" situation even taking barrel length into account, to maximize the burn time and pressure front. Etc, etc, etc ... There's no real tangible benefit to a .357Sig over a 9mm in terms of stopping a human target, if they are each tailored to the right application. Same goes for 10mm over .40, etc. My opinion is based upon years of LE experience, and attending multiple workshops and seminars with hands-on range time. That, and my penchant for statistical data from the FBI UCR and other reliable sources from actual shootings (LE and civilian). Don't get me wrong; I like having all kinds of calibers in all manner of guns. I can admit that the fun factor drives me to the "toy" purchases (don't lecture me about the word "toy" and "gun" in the same paragraph; I'm not that stupid). I am just admitting that I don't have a "need" for all my various guns; most are just for the joy of variety. I can admit it is an emotional attraction for me; I like a value full of fun stuff with variety. No one "needs" a .357Sig or a 10mm, or other side-line round. They are fun, and can be useful, but that are not so unique as to be a "must have". They rarely, if ever, provide a means of task-achievement that some other more popular round cannot achieve. About the only area I can come up with is where one really, truly "needs" a whopping handful of power in a larger, faster round. Say for hog hunting or bear protection (10mm with hot loads, or .454 Cas, or .500 S&W). But when humans are the target, 9mm and .45 do the same job, and no amount of super-duper speedy hot hand-load will change that. There is ZERO data that indicates a hot .357Sig is ACTUALLY more efficient at stopping a human threat; same goes for 10mm. 9mm, .40S&W, and .45 have been the mainstream loads for a long time. And .40 is falling off slowly. Likely because the old school way of thinking is slowly dissolving. .40 became the most popular LEO caliber many years ago, but that trend is starting to reverse itself. That's because of two things: 1) design of ammo and capability in quality control in making ammo are leveling the results across all applications 2) people actually paying attention to real data, and not bench racing their way into a choice Folks that hand-load like 2015PSD, myself, and others can have fun with unique rounds. But there's no data to show those obscure rounds are any more effective than a decently designed and appropriately selected 9mm or .45, in terms of real-world value against another person. If you load a 10mm, or .357Sig, to it's full value, few folks can accurately shoot them, and they are honestly punishing to shoot more than a few mags. You can decide to use lower-power choices in those calibers, that does not improve or degrade the tactical factor in macro data lethality and stoppages. If I had a choice between a well-selected 9mm and a hot, high-spped .357Sig for patrol duty, I'll take the 9mm every single time. The risks associated with the .357Sig include over-penetration on target, as well as issues of blinding muzzle flash and hearing degradation greater than those of the 9mm. I've actually discharged a 9mm firearm in a house; it ain't fun. Hot, speedy rounds only make it worse, and yet provide no real proof of claimed stopping power benefit to justify their use. So, yes, I have an opinion. Based upon years of experience at ballistic seminars, and reviewing a LOT of data from actual shootings. Just like oils and filters, there's the theory of bench racing, and then there's the reality of real-world data. In theory, a syn lube and FU should make for less wear in a 5k mile OCI. In theory, a faster, bigger round should make for a more effective stop in a human target. But the reality is that neither is true, because the bounds of normal environments and typical use don't allow the supposed benefits to actually materialize. This is because the variation of macro data of "normal" use FAR exceeds the theoretical benefits of some unique tool. Just like my statement about lubes, we can say the same of bullets ... We cannot claim that a .357Sig is "better" than 9mm, because the data does not support such a conclusion. But we CAN say that NEITHER is "better", because the data proves that typical application results in no discernible difference in performance. If anyone has data that shows, beyond a doubt, that a fast bullet is truly better in terms of stopping power in human targets, bring it forth. To date, I've not been able to find any, and most of you know facts and data are my thing!
 
Last edited:
Dnewton, your latest reply was well written and very logical. My extensive research and a small amount of first-hand experience (having both military and law enforcement time) lead me to the same basic conclusions you explained above. The 9mm IS the best all around, general purpose handgun caliber for self-defense against other humans; there I said it. Other calibers do have some slight advantages over the 9mm in some very limited capacities but NONE of them outweigh the all-around balance of attributes OR the real world, correctly collected statistics that the modern 9mm hollow point has backing it up. The other issue that gets forgotten about and lost in the translation of caliber debate is that we are talking about shooting humans. Humans are a unique study in the sense that the psychological traits of the person being shot are almost a bigger factor than anything else when it comes to the effect that is displayed when they get shot. In simpler terms, SOME humans are going to instantly fall to the ground and writhe in pain from barely being nicked with a bullet. Where as other humans will stay on their feet and continue to fight even after absorbing multiple well placed chest shots, regardless of the caliber or ammunition used. And no, that is not just conjecture. There are several documented reports of both scenarios happening in real life, recorded events. All this being said, I do own, shoot, carry and enjoy many other handgun calibers. I also recommend to others that if they are serious about firearms; they too should own, buy and shoot other calibers for different reasons. As for the original theme of this topic, .357 sig is a good caliber and I still enjoy it. I am comfortable saying it is a good choice for many uses, even though it may not be the all around best or most proven. I am happy the OP and others are excited about it, I am not taking anything away from that. At the end of the day, having the freedom to own, shoot, carry and debate about various firearms and calibers is what we ALL should be excited about. cheers USA
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: BlueOvalFitter
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
That is true. Last year, I wrote a thread about a seminar I attended where we had both classroom and range time to evaluate all manner of bullets and barriers. The old school mentality of "speed is best" is outdated. Today, the ammo companies can tune the loads to the applications. Statistically, there's no longer much, if any, benefit to a larger or faster round. The principle to adhere to is putting the rounds on target first and foremost. After that, it'a about tissue disruption. Super fast rounds have a tendency to over-penetrate (typically exit) before full expansion, or foul with barrier debris (clothing, etc). The goal is to get the most energy into the target, without exit. It's not just about bleeding; tissue shock also plays into this. The reality is that all the mainstream rounds (9mm, .40, .45) all can now be expected to perform the same, if they are properly designed and used in the correct gun. Propellants and bullets can now be matched to a "best fit" situation even taking barrel length into account, to maximize the burn time and pressure front. Etc, etc, etc ... There's no real tangible benefit to a .357Sig over a 9mm in terms of stopping a human target, if they are each tailored to the right application. Same goes for 10mm over .40, etc. My opinion is based upon years of LE experience, and attending multiple workshops and seminars with hands-on range time. That, and my penchant for statistical data from the FBI UCR and other reliable sources from actual shootings (LE and civilian). Don't get me wrong; I like having all kinds of calibers in all manner of guns. I can admit that the fun factor drives me to the "toy" purchases (don't lecture me about the word "toy" and "gun" in the same paragraph; I'm not that stupid). I am just admitting that I don't have a "need" for all my various guns; most are just for the joy of variety. I can admit it is an emotional attraction for me; I like a value full of fun stuff with variety. No one "needs" a .357Sig or a 10mm, or other side-line round. They are fun, and can be useful, but that are not so unique as to be a "must have". They rarely, if ever, provide a means of task-achievement that some other more popular round cannot achieve. About the only area I can come up with is where one really, truly "needs" a whopping handful of power in a larger, faster round. Say for hog hunting or bear protection (10mm with hot loads, or .454 Cas, or .500 S&W). But when humans are the target, 9mm and .45 do the same job, and no amount of super-duper speedy hot hand-load will change that. There is ZERO data that indicates a hot .357Sig is ACTUALLY more efficient at stopping a human threat; same goes for 10mm. 9mm, .40S&W, and .45 have been the mainstream loads for a long time. And .40 is falling off slowly. Likely because the old school way of thinking is slowly dissolving. .40 became the most popular LEO caliber many years ago, but that trend is starting to reverse itself. That's because of two things: 1) design of ammo and capability in quality control in making ammo are leveling the results across all applications 2) people actually paying attention to real data, and not bench racing their way into a choice Folks that hand-load like 2015PSD, myself, and others can have fun with unique rounds. But there's no data to show those obscure rounds are any more effective than a decently designed and appropriately selected 9mm or .45, in terms of real-world value against another person. If you load a 10mm, or .357Sig, to it's full value, few folks can accurately shoot them, and they are honestly punishing to shoot more than a few mags. You can decide to use lower-power choices in those calibers, that does not improve or degrade the tactical factor in macro data lethality and stoppages. If I had a choice between a well-selected 9mm and a hot, high-spped .357Sig for patrol duty, I'll take the 9mm every single time. The risks associated with the .357Sig include over-penetration on target, as well as issues of blinding muzzle flash and hearing degradation greater than those of the 9mm. I've actually discharged a 9mm firearm in a house; it ain't fun. Hot, speedy rounds only make it worse, and yet provide no real proof of claimed stopping power benefit to justify their use. So, yes, I have an opinion. Based upon years of experience at ballistic seminars, and reviewing a LOT of data from actual shootings. Just like oils and filters, there's the theory of bench racing, and then there's the reality of real-world data. In theory, a syn lube and FU should make for less wear in a 5k mile OCI. In theory, a faster, bigger round should make for a more effective stop in a human target. But the reality is that neither is true, because the bounds of normal environments and typical use don't allow the supposed benefits to actually materialize. This is because the variation of macro data of "normal" use FAR exceeds the theoretical benefits of some unique tool. Just like my statement about lubes, we can say the same of bullets ... We cannot claim that a .357Sig is "better" than 9mm, because the data does not support such a conclusion. But we CAN say that NEITHER is "better", because the data proves that typical application results in no discernible difference in performance. If anyone has data that shows, beyond a doubt, that a fast bullet is truly better in terms of stopping power in human targets, bring it forth. To date, I've not been able to find any, and most of you know facts and data are my thing!
Very good reading there D3. I'm not going into as much detail as you. But, what if the .308 round had not been made? Or, the 7.62X39? The 5.56/.223? Then we would have other rounds made as close to or similar to aforementioned rounds. Then, as time goes by, the aforementioned rounds are eventually made. Would we condone these new rounds, or accept them? What if they WERE BETTER than the rounds that were made in their place? IMO, I think the .357 SIG serves a purpose. If not, it would have never been invented. My philosophy is not as detailed as yours, but I think my points can be understood.
 
The 357 Sig is a round I'd like to try one day. I think they make conversion barrels for my Glock 20, since they share parent cases. I am curious why people like the round. I completely understand that every rough has its niche and is great for some certain tasks, but I'm thinking more on a personal level, when you try a new round what makes you think "whoa, this is awesome!". I know for my 10mm, the recoil was pretty beefy, so I like shooting it to train myself to handle the recoil, plus knowing the amount of energy the bullet has.
 
Originally Posted By: EdwardC
The 357 Sig is a round I'd like to try one day. I think they make conversion barrels for my Glock 20, since they share parent cases. I am curious why people like the round. I completely understand that every rough has its niche and is great for some certain tasks, but I'm thinking more on a personal level, when you try a new round what makes you think "whoa, this is awesome!". I know for my 10mm, the recoil was pretty beefy, so I like shooting it to train myself to handle the recoil, plus knowing the amount of energy the bullet has.
I like it because it's basically a 9mm on steroids. It's a very fast round that causes a lot of damage. I sure wouldn't want to be on the receiving end.
 
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: Reddy45
It's a good round and I think the federal air marshals still use it for it's flat shooting characteristics.
Because there's a lot of bullet drop down the aisle of a typical air-liner?????? The .357Sig is yet another invention with no real pragmatic purpose. I've shot them; they're hot. (Not unlike my 10mm; yet another creation that falls by the wayside in terms of popularity and usefulness). Are they fun? Sure. Are they "needed" or practical? Nope. When you load a .357Sig or 10mm to their full potential, they are a handful and cannot be easily controlled by most. And the fear of over-penetration is real when loaded to full potential. So you can "download" them (less performance), but they you'd be right in same envelope of a good 9mm ... That was the initial story of the 10mm. Started out hot and wicked, but Agents could not handle them. So they tuned them down to a point where the longer case was not needed, and so S&W came out with the .40cal (short 10mm). The .357Sig is just a hot .40 with a smaller bullet; what's the point here? What is the goal? - 9mm will always be the cheap way to go; apples to apples (purchased or hand-loaded) it cannot be beat for the price, and performs VERY well today with the advances in guns and ammo. - .45ACP will always be a fav for the "bigger is better" crowd. - Anything in between those two is just an answer to a question no one really needed to ask.
Well... Your post certainly represents the conventional wisdom (groupthink) when it comes to .357 SIG. Actually, in my opinion, there are a number of excellent features that the .357 SIG round offers that distinguish it from the other calibers that the majority of people choose as their carry calibers (9mm, .40 S&W, .45 ACP). Here are some of those features in list form: - Velocity. Especially with Underwood, Buffalo Bore, DoubleTap, and possibly some other less-well-known ammo OEMs, .357 SIG is loaded to its original intent (1450 FPS, which matches .357 MAG 125g loads out of a 4" revolver). Advantages over those other calibers I mentioned would be penetration of barriers such as auto glass and auto doors, as well as heavy winter clothing. That velocity also provides a tremendous energy dump into the target that is much more than any typical 9mm, .40, or .45. The velocity also all but guarantees consistent expansion of the round, reducing the potential for overpenetration. That velocity also makes for a handgun that shoots flatter than any of those other calibers, as well. It's a laser. - Bottleneck round The shape of the round all but eliminates feeding problems in an autoloader. Not much else needs to be said about that. - Variety of sizes of handguns it's available in With Glock, you have a choice of 3 different sizes of handgun to carry the .357 SIG in (Glock 31, 32, 33). All of us who carry a handgun know that carrying a larger gun can get old. The G33, which is the same size as a G26, and still offers 9+1 capacity with a flush-fit mag. AND, the 13, 15 and 22-round Factory Glock mags are also compatible. I'd make the argument that the Glock 33 pocket rocket is the most punch, for its size, that you can get, in a handgun. All of the above reasons are why so many police agencies, especially highway patrol departments, as well as the Secret Service, choose the .357 SIG in either Sig Sauer or Glock as their duty sidearms. So, in summary, the .357 SIG round is far from a dead caliber, as the groupthink on forums would have you to believe. People who are in the know about the distinctive capabilities offered by this round will keep it around for a long time to come.
 
The same arguments you make for the Sig round were stated abundantly about the 10mm ... And yet it's an also-ran in terms of selection. The bottle neck effect of .357Sig may help in some cases, but I'd contend that's a band-aid to a poorly designed or made feed ramp. 9mm feeds just fine in well made guns. Stoppages are typically a result of a poor fit, and/or a poorly designed bullet nose. The case shape, itself, should not be the reason a round does or does not feed. In fact, the case really should be the second thing to hit the ramp, not the first. The bullet is the main reason a round gets where it's desired. Nose shape, ramp angle, magazine grip on the case, etc all play into this. That bottle neck shape is secondary to a good bullet/ramp relationship. As for velocity, I'll counter with this ... Group-think, as you call it, is changing most of the time; it evolves. The "old" group-think was that speed is king; hot and fast was were it was at. And so the 10mm and .357Sig were developed. But real world data shows those rounds, when fully loaded, don't put a person down with any more efficiency than a well selected .45 or 9mm. You can yabut this to death (yeah, but ....) and it won't change real world shooting data. Speed does NOT equate to lethality in human targets. Very fast rounds have a tendency to over-penetrate (exit). Anytime something exits, it means energy that should have been dumped into the target is actually being carried out of the target and into a secondary target (hopefully not an innocent person in the background). If your round starts with more energy, but it leaves only X% in the target and carries Y% out, then you paid for energy you wasted. And again, the hotter and faster the round, the more sound and flash you'll get, too. Ever fire a gun in a home? I have, and it was terrible. It would only be worse if it were louder and brighter. If I need follow up shots, I need to see and not be blinded by residual retinal flash effects. I might need to be able to hear someone behind me, and the least amount of ear-ringing is the most desirable. Any time you fire a firearm in an enclosed area, it's bad. But it's worse with hot, fast rounds. Also, hot and fast also makes follow up shots that much more difficult, and (when fractions of seconds may count), slower. The .357Sig was basically created to make an auto-loader duplicate the size/speed of the old .357mag. The 357mag had a great record of being effective for decades because it was predominant in LE use, and contrasted to other choices like .38spl, it was king. But we all know the .38spl was just a poor round for lethality, overall. So the "dominance" of the .357mag was mainly due to it being a high-spot in an otherwise poor choice arena. The .357Sig was made to duplicate the .357mag's effect, by copying it's speed and size. But that lethality data was based on decades old info. If you took today's well made 9mm, correctly applied in the right barrels, it is just as effective. The point is that the .357mag wasn't really so awesome because it did things well; it was awesome because it had relatively little viable competition. The 357Sig did exactly what it was designed to do; it's fast and hot and the same size as it's namesake. The .357Sig duplicates the characteristics of the .357mag; fine. But those characteristics don't mean it's any more effective than a well done 9mm. There was a time when 9mm rounds were not effective; those times are past. The technology of design, quality of propellant manufacture, etc all make the 9mm today every bit as good as .357 choices. I am not saying that we cannot appreciate the vast majority of calibers we can have. I own a LOT in my vault, and love the variety. But what I have for fun, versus what I need in times of SHTF, at two different things. Again, for human targets, we need accuracy and stopping effectiveness. Yes - the .357Sig will be around for a long time. As will the 10mm. Both lurking in the corners of niche production because in full power, they have compromises that cannot justify their use most of the time. They never were, nor will they ever be, mainstream. Some of you might think I've always been a 9mm man. That's not true. For years my personal carry was a Glk29 in 10mm. I, too, used to be under the impression that speed and size mattered most. But then I started to look into the real world data; not gun magazine bench racing. And the reality is that these two things are really most important: 1) get it on target, every time 2) dump all the energy in the target, and expend none of it on exit Really hot, fast rounds have a propensity to make both more difficult. I wholly agree this is a personal choice; no problem with anyone carrying anything that they can safely handle. There are times when we can all bring into the conversation a "what about this" example. - We had one a few years ago in our neighboring agency. They had a police action shooting where they had to dump several rounds into a teenage kid; more than a dozen as I recall. All 9mm. Some questioned if the 9mm was too weak. The kid was not even doped up; well not with illicit drugs anyway. He was amp'd up on his own adrenaline! There is a condition called ED (excited delirium) that makes people almost "super human" in terms of strength and fight from their own body chemistry. Shooting that kid with hotter, faster bullets would have only made more of them end up in the car behind him. - We had another one a county over where one shot from one 9mm killed a person almost instantly. There is no "perfect" round. There will always be compromises. There will always be some contributing condition that makes someone want to coach it over again from the couch. But the real world data shows that fast and large do not show any correlation to more kills in terms of efficiency. Fast and large rounds may have a minimal contribution, but they are dwarfed in massive fashion by putting rounds where they belong, and not wasting energy outside the target. Fast and large are just noise in the statistical data of macro-data shootings. Like I said before, the data does not show they are "better", but the data does show that neither are better. If anyone has real shooting data that would contradict this, please show me. I'm not adverse to learning from new sources. But it must be credible; real shots on target, not gun mag hype.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Very fast rounds have a tendency to over-penetrate (exit). Anytime something exits, it means energy that should have been dumped into the target is actually being carried out of the target and into a secondary target (hopefully not an innocent person in the background). If your round starts with more energy, but it leaves only X% in the target and carries Y% out, then you paid for energy you wasted.
Dave - what sources are you finding that show the original grain (125) for a .357SIG over penetrates? With the exception of Underwood, all other testing I have seen (Federal, Hornady, Speer, and Winchester) places the .357SIG right along 9MM and .40S&W in the 13"-16" range in controlled testing.
 
I’ve done a lot of testing with chronographs, and hard and soft targets. I’ve made about a dozen different loads for the caliber, and have shot them hundreds of times each. It penetrates more in hard targets, and yet doesn’t in soft targets with hollow points. It expands more, and leaves a larger wound channel. I guess it would overpenetrate with FMJ bullets, but so would 9mm.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Crispysea
I’ve done a lot of testing with chronographs, and hard and soft targets. I’ve made about a dozen different loads for the caliber, and have shot them hundreds of times each. It penetrates more in hard targets, and yet doesn’t in soft targets with hollow points. It expands more, and leaves a larger wound channel. I guess it would overpenetrate with FMJ bullets, but so would 9mm.
All that you speak of about the .357 SIG's characteristics are what I like about this round.
 
Originally Posted By: Crispysea
I’ve done a lot of testing with chronographs, and hard and soft targets. I’ve made about a dozen different loads for the caliber, and have shot them hundreds of times each. It penetrates more in hard targets, and yet doesn’t in soft targets with hollow points. It expands more, and leaves a larger wound channel. I guess it would overpenetrate with FMJ bullets, but so would 9mm.
For clarity, I was only referring to JHP bullets; apologies if there was some confusion caused by my incomplete statement. I would fully assume that FMJ's in a .357SIG would pass through multiple targets before stopping.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

BlueOvalFitter
  • Locked
.357 SIG HST Ammo Q?
Replies
9
Views
3K
Astro14
BlueOvalFitter
  • Locked
Choice of .357 SIG Ammo
3 4 5
Replies
99
Views
24K
Ammofirst
BlueOvalFitter
  • Locked
+P & +P+ Ammo
2
Replies
33
Views
6K
billt460
BlueOvalFitter
  • Locked
PDX1 And Underwood .357 Magnum Ammo?
Replies
15
Views
6K
bigj_16
john_pifer
  • Locked
G32 Gen4 - New EDC Piece
Replies
11
Views
3K
hatt
Top