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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: 2015_PSD
Originally Posted By: BlueOvalFitter
One of these days I WILL own a G32. By the time I get ready to buy one, I hope Glock is still making them.
They are and will be for some time to come is my guess; I have a G31, Two G32's, and a G33 (all G4). You can always buy a G32 barrel and pick up a G23 (.40S&W) and have two pistols. It is what I did (at first) and now I have a spare G32 barrel for the two I have.

Yeah, I forgot about that route. That's how I'm set up on my M&P .40's.
Upper barrel is a S&W M&P .357 SIG factory barrel to drop in my.40.
Lower barrel is a STORM LAKE .40 to 9mm conversion barrel for my .40.

2mc9554.jpg
 
We chronographed some 357 sig Underwood loads. 1. 125gr gold dots 5 shot avg. 1564 : 2. 125gr bonded FMJ 5 shot avg. 1572 : chrono set at 12 feet / elevation approx. 9200ft / pistol M&P 357 sig with 5”storm lake bbl. / ProChrono Chronograph. 686 ft.lb energy Not to shabby.
 
Originally Posted By: Ammofirst
We chronographed some 357 sig Underwood loads. 1. 125gr gold dots 5 shot avg. 1564 : 2. 125gr bonded FMJ 5 shot avg. 1572 : chrono set at 12 feet / elevation approx. 9200ft / pistol M&P 357 sig with 5”storm lake bbl. / ProChrono Chronograph. 686 ft.lb energy Not to shabby.


That’s just amazing.

It would be interesting to know if the Underwood .357 SIG loads exceed max pressure specs.
 
Originally Posted By: john_pifer
Originally Posted By: Ammofirst
We chronographed some 357 sig Underwood loads. 1. 125gr gold dots 5 shot avg. 1564 : 2. 125gr bonded FMJ 5 shot avg. 1572 : chrono set at 12 feet / elevation approx. 9200ft / pistol M&P 357 sig with 5”storm lake bbl. / ProChrono Chronograph. 686 ft.lb energy Not to shabby.


That’s just amazing.

It would be interesting to know if the Underwood .357 SIG loads exceed max pressure specs.


I haven't seen any excess pressure indications in any Underwood ammo I have fired, and most of it is pretty hot. Underwood ammo usually matches or exceeds its advertised rate.
The altitude may have added a few fps, also
 
Originally Posted By: john_pifer
I want a G33 to add to my G32.

Or, if someone makes a .357 barrel for a Kahr MK40 or PM40...that would be a really cool pocket rocket.

I heard there was one for the Taurus Millennium at one time. They’re super rare now.
 
Originally Posted By: bigj_16
The altitude may have added a few fps, also
The 5" barrel added a small amount too.
 
Anytime I shoot underwood ammo I check the brass after firing. I have yet to see any signs of over pressure. Mostly 45 super & 357 sig. The Super feeds thru a FNX 45 with a factory bbl / 357 sig thru m&p with storm lake bbl. Both have very good chamber support. The 255gr hard cast 45 super has quite a kick. The 125gr sig loads are tame by comparison.
 
Originally Posted By: john_pifer
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
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.



The feeding advantage of .357 SIG is merely incidental to its bottleneck design; not some band-aid afterthought that was applied to correct any deficiency in feed ramp design or anything like that. It's just a fact. All else being equal, a bottleneck round is going to have an advantage in feeding.

You argue that a projectile's higher velocity and its resulting greater energy dumped on-target (in this case, .357 SIG vs. 9mm, .40 or .45) doesn't stop a human threat any better than a slower projectile. That's simply untrue. If that were the case, there would be no need for rifles or anything more powerful than 9mm pistols. The facts are that higher velocity and energy transferred to a threat equate to greater damage, and a higher likelihood of stopping an individual's threatening behavior immediately. It's just physics. The more damage a bullet is capable of doing, the higher the chance of causing the kind of damage that's necessary to stop an attacker in his tracks (interruption of CNS function through damage to brain, spine, or other major nerves, or immediate, massive loss of blood pressure, or destruction of major, load-bearing bones).

As far as overpenetration, you're wrong on that as well. It's common knowledge that, at least, with the best-designed modern bullets (HST, Gold Dot, PDX-1) that expand reliably regardless of clothing, etc, higher velocity DOES NOT equate to overpenetration. In fact, it's the opposite - higher velocity translates to greater expansion of hollowpoint rounds, and LESS penetration.

Here are 4 videos by respected YouTube ballistics tester tnoutdoors9 showing this:

.357 SIG HST (13"):

https://youtu.be/3kLkpIljrNA

.357 SIG Gold Dot (14.5"):

https://youtu.be/G5FOFnJVS0E

.357 SIG PDX-1 (12"):

https://youtu.be/w9tMqnNXaDY

.357 SIG Gold Dot (loaded by Underwood Ammuntion to 1500+ FPS from 4" Glock 32 barrel)(15")

https://youtu.be/ughIFOrIP_w

So, the above hollowpoint rounds are considered by some (myself included) to be the best available defensive hollowpoint rounds available on the market today. And, with .357 SIG, they all fell within the 12"-16" range deemed acceptable by the FBI. These rounds (I personally carry the Underwood loading of the Gold Dot in my G32) dump the entire 600 lbs. of muzzle energy into the target.

And, as far as accurately getting rounds on-target, you are right that there is more recoil than the typical 9mm, and that it will be too much for some, especially those who don't shoot much. Personally, I go to the range and shoot a lot, and most of my handguns are big-bore. I'm over 6' tall, have large hands, and I'm not recoil-averse (my first handgun, bought over 15 years ago, was a Glock 20). Plus, I don't find the recoil of the Glock 32 to be hard to handle, at all. It's about the same as an average .40 S&W.

So, it boils down to an individual choice. If you believe you're fine with 9mm, more power to you. I have no problem with 9mm. In fact, it's my EDC most of the time (Sig P938 loaded with Underwood Gold Dot 124g +P). Just don't try to tell me that a higher-powered projectile is no better at stopping a deadly threat than a low-powered one.









Yep. People need to understand that there's not a critical point in terms of velocity where a round all of the sudden becomes highly effective. It would have to be linear, or close to it.
 
Originally Posted By: Ammofirst
Anytime I shoot underwood ammo I check the brass after firing. I have yet to see any signs of over pressure.


Me either, big fan of Underwood and most of my carry ammo is Underwood (.380, 9mm and 38 Super). I find the quality is high, the prices reasonable, the performance industry leading, and I have never seen a single indicator of high pressure on any spent brass.
 
Originally Posted By: KCJeep
Originally Posted By: Ammofirst
Anytime I shoot underwood ammo I check the brass after firing. I have yet to see any signs of over pressure.


Me either, big fan of Underwood and most of my carry ammo is Underwood (.380, 9mm and 38 Super). I find the quality is high, the prices reasonable, the performance industry leading, and I have never seen a single indicator of high pressure on any spent brass.



100%!
 
Originally Posted By: KCJeep
Originally Posted By: Ammofirst
Anytime I shoot underwood ammo I check the brass after firing. I have yet to see any signs of over pressure.


Me either, big fan of Underwood and most of my carry ammo is Underwood (.380, 9mm and 38 Super). I find the quality is high, the prices reasonable, the performance industry leading, and I have never seen a single indicator of high pressure on any spent brass.


KC, this Underwood .357 SIG 125 gr. Gold Dot test is very impressive! IMO, the bullet looked like perfect expansion, and a very nice diameter. The average velocity of 5 rounds was 1511 FPS, and 634 ft. lbs. of muzzle energy! That's cooking! And, that's using a Glock G32.
I have watched A LOT of ballistic testing of the .357 SIG ammunition, and this particular Underwood round blows everything else away! Quite impressive.
Some look at gel tests with a negative opinion, but I'm thinking this is the closet test to the alternative.

https://youtu.be/ughIFOrIP_w
 
It is crazy, how powerful it is.

With this ammo, I think the Glock 33 is probably the top contender for most powerful subcompact pistol in the world.
 
Originally Posted By: bigj_16
If you like that, you might want to check this out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxGQgnlPlb0


I have a Glock 20, and have tested some of the Underwood-loaded 180g Gold Dot out of it. It’s impressive, but I’m more impressed by the .357 SIG stuff. Sure, the 10mm is more powerful. But the .357 SIG does more with less. Smaller case, shorter barrel.

That 135g stuff was only about 100 FPS faster than the .357 SIG stuff, and it had more case vol. and .6” more barrel to work with. Yeah, sure, it’s 10 grains heavier - 135 vs. 125. But the Glock 20 is much bulkier and heavier than the Glock 32 (I own both). The Glock 29 is about the size of the Glock 32, as far as length & height. But it’s heavier, thicker through the slide and grip, and doesn’t hold as much ammo with a flush-fit mag.

Where the 10mm shines is its ability to sling heavy slugs. A 200g bullet at >1200 FPS - that’s carrying some punch behind it. Certainly wouldn’t have any trouble taking whitetail with something like a 200g XTP. Or get yourself a longer, conventionally-rifled barrel and some hardcast or softpoint 200 or 220g bullets and carry it as a backup or even a main hog-hunting rig or for predator defense in the mountains.

That’s what I’ve always liked about the Glock 20 - its versatility.
 
Originally Posted By: Reddy45
My only gripe is that rounds named after companies tend to have really weak market support and distribution (45 GAP anyone?)


I know...history is riddled with ammunition named after firearm's makers that have fallen short.

After all, how many of these have gone anywhere?

.380 Automatic Colt Pistol
.38 S&W Special
.40 S&W
.44 S&W Sspecial
.44 Remington Magnum
.45 Colt
.45 Automatic Colt Pistol

Then there are also the not-as-popular ones that can usually still be found at well stocked stores
32-20 Winchester
.32 S&W
.32 S&W Long
.25 Automatic Colt Pistol
.32 Automatic Colt Pistol
.32 H&R Magnum
.38 Short Colt(making a come back with the cowboy shooters)
.38 Long Colt
.38 S&W
38-40 Winchester
.41 Remington Magnum
44-40 Winchester
.460 S&W Magnum
.500 S&W Magnum

I know I'm missing some. Also, I'm only including cartridges that are in current production AND carry the name of a company that makes guns(although I'm not sure if Remington has ever made anything chambered in 41 or 44 magnum).
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: bigj_16
If you like that, you might want to check this out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxGQgnlPlb0

Those numbers are very impressive! But, IMO, I think the .357 SIG performed much better in the ballistics gel test. It seems to me it (Underwood .357 SIG) was a more stable round. I hope I'm saying that correctly, and/or you understand me.
thumbsup2.gif
34.gif
 
Originally Posted By: john_pifer
It would be interesting to know if the Underwood .357 SIG loads exceed max pressure specs.


Unless it's by total accident, (which usually involves an immediate costly recall), in today's oversaturated legal world, you will not find any ammunition company deliberately loading over pressure cartridges enough to cause a gun to come apart. It would be both legal and financial suicide if they did. I'll be the first to admit that today SAAMI pressure levels don't determine the safety levels of cartridges very accurately. Only because they've been so radically reduced over the years. Today's ammunition manufacturers keep a very close eye on producing dangerous ammo. It's a very risky business that could put an ammo maker out of business with a single law suit.

There isn't a round being produced today that would "blow up" a gun. While there are several like Federal 9 MM BPLE +P+ that will wear out a weapon quicker if fed a steady diet of it. It is not dangerous to fire in ANY 9 MM weapon. This is why most all weapons undergo Proof Testing. Underwood, Buffalo Bore, Cor-Bon, Super Vel, as well as Garrett all fit into that category.
 
Originally Posted By: BlueOvalFitter
Originally Posted By: bigj_16
If you like that, you might want to check this out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxGQgnlPlb0

Those numbers are very impressive! But, IMO, I think the .357 SIG performed much better in the ballistics gel test. It seems to me it (Underwood .357 SIG) was a more stable round. I hope I'm saying that correctly, and/or you understand me.
thumbsup2.gif
34.gif



Understood
thumbsup2.gif
thumbsup2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: BlueOvalFitter
Originally Posted By: KCJeep
Originally Posted By: Ammofirst
Anytime I shoot underwood ammo I check the brass after firing. I have yet to see any signs of over pressure.


Me either, big fan of Underwood and most of my carry ammo is Underwood (.380, 9mm and 38 Super). I find the quality is high, the prices reasonable, the performance industry leading, and I have never seen a single indicator of high pressure on any spent brass.


KC, this Underwood .357 SIG 125 gr. Gold Dot test is very impressive! IMO, the bullet looked like perfect expansion, and a very nice diameter. The average velocity of 5 rounds was 1511 FPS, and 634 ft. lbs. of muzzle energy! That's cooking! And, that's using a Glock G32.
I have watched A LOT of ballistic testing of the .357 SIG ammunition, and this particular Underwood round blows everything else away! Quite impressive.
Some look at gel tests with a negative opinion, but I'm thinking this is the closet test to the alternative.

https://youtu.be/ughIFOrIP_w


The gel test ballistic testing is very helpful for comparing rounds against each other. At least you can see the tendencies of each load.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top