.357 SIG vs. .40 S&W vs. .357 magnum

Handgun, Pistol and Revolver topics

Moderator: ZS Global Moderators

pseay02
*
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 7:33 pm

.357 SIG vs. .40 S&W vs. .357 magnum

Post by pseay02 » Tue Aug 28, 2012 7:54 pm

So I have a question. Everyone agrees that .357 magnum is a better stopper than a. 40. However everyone also says. 357 SIG is no better than a. 40. However a properly loaded. 357 SIG from a 4.5" barrel will hang right with a federal 125gr. .357 magnum from a 4" barrel. So why is. I fully understand that a hot. 357 magnum load will leave the SIG load in the dust. But in these loadings I view them as equal. Does anyone else have a different perspective on this? As underwood ammo lists the 125gr. 357 SIG @ 1450 fps. And federal lists the 125 gr. 357 magnum at 1440 fps

User avatar
Kommander
* * * * *
Posts: 4274
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:38 am
Location: Mesa, AZ

Re: .357 SIG vs. .40 S&W vs. .357 magnum

Post by Kommander » Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:21 pm

There are other consideration that simply which caliber is the "better stopper". Also not everyone "Everyone agrees that .357 magnum is a better stopper than a. 40."
Why must all the hoops be on fire?

User avatar
Maverick299
* * * * *
Posts: 1244
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Hawkeye State

Re: .357 SIG vs. .40 S&W vs. .357 magnum

Post by Maverick299 » Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:23 pm

I happen to agree that the .357 Sig is a better round than the .40, but you'll figure out that the .357 mag has a bad rap around here because it doesn't come in a black plastic pistol and have a 18 round capacity and the .357 Sig has a bad rap for......well I'm not really sure. Both of the rounds happen to be favorites of mine and are my two choices for conceal carrying. Capacity on a .357 Sig is much less than a 9mm, but I prefer the speed and penetration over the capacity.
The Devil's always smiling when I pass by.

pseay02
*
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 7:33 pm

Re: .357 SIG vs. .40 S&W vs. .357 magnum

Post by pseay02 » Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:35 pm

The only reason I'm asking is I'm looking into buying a flock 31 barrel for my 22 as I owned a p229 in. 357 before and loved the round. Guess on the internet anything can be great or terrible. Do you think the. 357 conversion is worth it?

User avatar
PistolPete
ZS Moderator
ZS Moderator
Posts: 6577
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 12:31 pm
Location: St Louis

Re: .357 SIG vs. .40 S&W vs. .357 magnum

Post by PistolPete » Tue Aug 28, 2012 9:17 pm

I like the recoil impulse of the 357 sig more than a 40, but that's personal preference. Ammo is pricey in that caliber which is a downside. Certain reports gives it a slight advantage in terminal ballistics over other common handgun cartridges and some people advocate getting any advantage you can.

Keep in mind that cartridges that sport high velocity often require longer barrels to achieve that velocity. You may find in carry-length barrels you aren't getting much of an advantage. For instance, 125gr Cor-bon DPX was measured at 1,237 fps out of a 357sig with a 3" barrel. Cor-bon 124gr JHP +P out of a 9mm with a 3" barrel was measured at 1,170 fps. Yes, that's a difference for sure, but not near the difference you get out of longer barrels, which can be 200fps between the two cartridge.

So a lot depends on your purpose and the sort of gun you are using.
Steemit, where I write stuff now

Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first.
- Mark Twain
Image

Dooms
* * * *
Posts: 812
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 10:41 am

Re: .357 SIG vs. .40 S&W vs. .357 magnum

Post by Dooms » Tue Aug 28, 2012 9:41 pm

The great thing about .357 magnum is the versatility. In a revolver one can fire everything from light .38 special loads to full power .357 bear hunting loads (and even .38 colt ammo if you can find it). .357sig doesn't have nearly the versatility. At the same time, .357 sig ballistics can be pretty closely replicated with 9mm +p+ ammunition. Finally, .357 sig is also more difficult to find than it's .40 S&W brethren (which came to the market first).

With those combined factors it's pretty obvious why it's not more popular. With that said, if you already own a .40 S&W handgun, it's usually no big deal to convert back-and-forth between .357 sig and .40 S&W. That being the case, I think it will be around for a long time. Therefore, if you like it, I see no reason not to have one (or at least the conversion barrel). :)

pseay02
*
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 7:33 pm

Re: .357 SIG vs. .40 S&W vs. .357 magnum

Post by pseay02 » Tue Aug 28, 2012 9:51 pm

If I do the conversion it will be with either a factory flock 31 barrel which is 4.5" or I thought about the lone wolf 5" threaded barrel. I understand about the versatility I'm only interested in the self defense aspect from two and light four legged predators as I do go hiking occasionally

Dooms
* * * *
Posts: 812
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 10:41 am

Re: .357 SIG vs. .40 S&W vs. .357 magnum

Post by Dooms » Tue Aug 28, 2012 10:04 pm

I would probably do the 5" barrel. The sig round likes longer barrels. Too short and you loose quite a bit of velocity while gaining quite a bit of muzzle flash.

User avatar
PistolPete
ZS Moderator
ZS Moderator
Posts: 6577
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 12:31 pm
Location: St Louis

Re: .357 SIG vs. .40 S&W vs. .357 magnum

Post by PistolPete » Tue Aug 28, 2012 10:06 pm

For a hiking gun with a 5" barrel I like the 357sig round a lot.
Steemit, where I write stuff now

Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first.
- Mark Twain
Image

Lt.Cdr.Tom
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:48 am
Location: Southern Missouri

Re: .357 SIG vs. .40 S&W vs. .357 magnum

Post by Lt.Cdr.Tom » Tue Aug 28, 2012 10:18 pm

An advantage of the .357 SIG is that the round is bottlenecked. This improves reliability, because you're essentially sticking a 9mm bullet in a 10mm hole.
"The thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live and die." -Søren Kierkegaard

I don't always use stainless steel, but when I do, I prefer Sandvik.

User avatar
Spd164
* * *
Posts: 440
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 1:01 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

.357 SIG vs. .40 S&W vs. .357 magnum

Post by Spd164 » Tue Aug 28, 2012 10:33 pm

Lt.Cdr.Tom wrote:An advantage of the .357 SIG is that the round is bottlenecked. This improves reliability, because you're essentially sticking a 9mm bullet in a 10mm hole.
Ummm...I don't even...whaaaa???
Image

User avatar
Maverick299
* * * * *
Posts: 1244
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Hawkeye State

Re: .357 SIG vs. .40 S&W vs. .357 magnum

Post by Maverick299 » Tue Aug 28, 2012 10:42 pm

Spd164 wrote:
Lt.Cdr.Tom wrote:An advantage of the .357 SIG is that the round is bottlenecked. This improves reliability, because you're essentially sticking a 9mm bullet in a 10mm hole.
Ummm...I don't even...whaaaa???
Bottlenecked cartridges feed out of the mag, up the feed ramp and into the chamber more reliably due to the tapered design. Therefore making them less likely to have a feeding malfunction.
The Devil's always smiling when I pass by.

User avatar
PistolPete
ZS Moderator
ZS Moderator
Posts: 6577
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 12:31 pm
Location: St Louis

Re: .357 SIG vs. .40 S&W vs. .357 magnum

Post by PistolPete » Tue Aug 28, 2012 10:44 pm

Maverick299 wrote: Bottlenecked cartridges feed out of the mag, up the feed ramp and into the chamber more reliably due to the tapered design. Therefore making them less likely to have a feeding malfunction.
This is a certainly the case, but it's not like 9mm is known for being a jam-o-matic. In general modern guns feed very reliably regardless of the cartridge. Enough so that I'd suggest it's a non-issue.
Steemit, where I write stuff now

Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first.
- Mark Twain
Image

User avatar
Spd164
* * *
Posts: 440
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 1:01 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

.357 SIG vs. .40 S&W vs. .357 magnum

Post by Spd164 » Tue Aug 28, 2012 11:02 pm

Maverick299 wrote:
Spd164 wrote:
Lt.Cdr.Tom wrote:An advantage of the .357 SIG is that the round is bottlenecked. This improves reliability, because you're essentially sticking a 9mm bullet in a 10mm hole.
Ummm...I don't even...whaaaa???
Bottlenecked cartridges feed out of the mag, up the feed ramp and into the chamber more reliably due to the tapered design. Therefore making them less likely to have a feeding malfunction.
Wow, ok I read LtCdrTom's post all wrong. The way I interpreted it had me all confused. I get the increased reliability of feeding thing (however minuscule a difference it may be) but for some reason when I read that post I was picturing a 10mm boolit in a 9mm case feeding into a .40 cal chamber or something. That'll teach me to utilize mental imagery after half a bottle of Jameson :)

Sorry for the derailment. Thanks for explaining everything to the drunk guy. Move along now folks *hic* nuffin to see here...
Image

User avatar
Maverick299
* * * * *
Posts: 1244
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Hawkeye State

Re: .357 SIG vs. .40 S&W vs. .357 magnum

Post by Maverick299 » Tue Aug 28, 2012 11:32 pm

Spd164 wrote:
Maverick299 wrote:
Spd164 wrote:
Lt.Cdr.Tom wrote:An advantage of the .357 SIG is that the round is bottlenecked. This improves reliability, because you're essentially sticking a 9mm bullet in a 10mm hole.
Ummm...I don't even...whaaaa???
Bottlenecked cartridges feed out of the mag, up the feed ramp and into the chamber more reliably due to the tapered design. Therefore making them less likely to have a feeding malfunction.
Wow, ok I read LtCdrTom's post all wrong. The way I interpreted it had me all confused. I get the increased reliability of feeding thing (however minuscule a difference it may be) but for some reason when I read that post I was picturing a 10mm boolit in a 9mm case feeding into a .40 cal chamber or something. That'll teach me to utilize mental imagery after half a bottle of Jameson :)

Sorry for the derailment. Thanks for explaining everything to the drunk guy. Move along now folks *hic* nuffin to see here...
No worries, I drink a lot too!

Toms post was a bit rather hard to follow. At least I think I wrote what he was trying to say.
The Devil's always smiling when I pass by.

Lt.Cdr.Tom
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:48 am
Location: Southern Missouri

Re: .357 SIG vs. .40 S&W vs. .357 magnum

Post by Lt.Cdr.Tom » Wed Aug 29, 2012 2:13 am

Maverick299 wrote:
No worries, I drink a lot too!

Toms post was a bit rather hard to follow. At least I think I wrote what he was trying to say.
Sorry about that, my computer doesn't seem to want to translate my hand gestures into text.
"The thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live and die." -Søren Kierkegaard

I don't always use stainless steel, but when I do, I prefer Sandvik.

pseay02
*
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 7:33 pm

Re: .357 SIG vs. .40 S&W vs. .357 magnum

Post by pseay02 » Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:31 am

My thought was everyone said .357 magnum was a great defensive rd and I can match the power with 16 rds on tap (no pun intended to you drinkers lol) so how is a hot .357 SIG load from a 5" barrel for black bear or mountain lion etc.

User avatar
Gingerbread Man
ZS Lifetime Member
ZS Lifetime Member
Posts: 10834
Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 10:05 am

Re: .357 SIG vs. .40 S&W vs. .357 magnum

Post by Gingerbread Man » Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:43 am

Okay, I looked around and I can't find any gun that isn't a 1911 style gun in 357 Sig with a 5" barrel. Maybe my google fu is weak. That stated, all the guns were super expensive.

Here's my take. If you want power, here's my suggestion if you want high mag capacity.

Buy a G20 for $550. Throw on a 6" 9x25mm barrel. Rock on. Thats 17+1 with a +2 extender with a rd that pushes a 9mm bullet at about 1700 FPS. Total package would be around $800 and weight around 28 ozs empty with very high reliability.

Bears, yo' days are numbered. :rofl:
Shrapnel wrote "nobody is trying to be a dick and give out warnings for every little thing" :|
Image
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DS1icEssOUM

Doctorr Fabulous
ZS Lifetime Member
ZS Lifetime Member
Posts: 12210
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:06 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: Evil Dead, Zombieland, 28 Days/Weeks Later

Re: .357 SIG vs. .40 S&W vs. .357 magnum

Post by Doctorr Fabulous » Wed Aug 29, 2012 8:30 am

I think you're talking to the wrong everyones.

There are two ways to kill something quickly with a bullet, exsanguination (bleeding out) or interruption of the CNS (the "kill switch" shot to the brain stem.) Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something, or has some magic information that no one else has seen. Hydrostatic shock, AKA temporary wound cavities, do not kill unless they cause an interruption the spinal cord, which I still have yet to see proven as feasible under anything but the most extremely perfect [read: lab conditions] circumstances. Think of a temporary wound cavity like a punch: it's a pretty good deal of force, but as soon as it's gone the flesh *mostly* says "alright then" and goes back to what it was doing.

There are three factors that contribute to a good shot. Shot placement is #1, because no matter what bullet you put into them, if it doesn't hit the important bits then you've done nothing but cause some pain, scarring, and a minor bleed.

Secondly, we need penetration. Penetration standards are measured byt the "FBI Test" which fails anythign that fails to penetrate less than 12" into the target and expand uniformly while retaining a high percentage of its mass. The reason for this is the diverse body types in America, ranging from massively obese to massively muscular to Tom Hanks-Castaway thin, and the added difficulty of reliable penetration to the chest cavity when thick or heavy clothing is present.

Thirdly, expansion. Expansion needs to be reliable and uniform, with as little deviation as possible when things like glass, leather jackets, or denim (hey, the eighties could make a comeback) to ensure that you cause the biggest hole you can, to aid rapid exsanguination.

This all comes into play when comparing these three rounds. Lets compare Hornady CTD loads for the three of them.
.357 Sig: 115gr@1235FPS at the muzzle
.357 Mag: Hornady lists the 8" and 2" velocities (1500 muzzle and 1200fps@muzzle, relatively) so by splittign the difference, I figure we're going to see 1300fps+ from a 5" barrel, which is what I'm assuming the .357Sig was launched from.
.40 S&W: A whopping 165gr traveling at 1175fps at the muzzle

So, for a 100fps difference in muzzle velocity, we see quite the jump in bullet weight between the Sig and the .40. Similarly, for .357 Magnum, we see a 10grain jump in bullet weight and no real jump in bullet weight. On paper, the 40 looks like the killer. Now for the expansion tests!

Image

Image

Those big uber massive blooms are the temporary wound cavity, caused by the nature of the gel. Statistically, the big wide impressive blooms mean little in the grand scheme of things. Aside from that, most of the decent HP loads perform about the same. Even "wimpy" old 9mm appears to perform about the same. Personally, I don't care for the extra noise, recoil, or cost of .357 Sig, Magnum, or .40S&W, so I make do with 9mm and .45ACP.

Now for hunting, you generally will need more penetration, depending on the game, which is why .357 Magnum makes the cut there and the others don't. While the defensive loads for the .357 are light, to accomodate fast, accurate follow-up shots, the hunting loads are heavier and hotter.
1. 3 inch S&W J frame

a. Item 19A/20-180gr. Hard cast LFN = 1302 fps
b. Item 19B/20-170gr. JHC (jacketed hollow cavity) = 1299 fps
c. Item 19C/20-158gr. Jacketed Hollow Point = 1398 fps
d. Item 19D/20-125gr. Jacketed Hollow Point = 1476 fps
Yeah, Buffalo Bore leadnose hunting ammo that is heavier and faster out of a 3" J frame than a .357 Sig out of a full size Glock. Drop it into a 6" and it gets faster. That's why it's the hunting round, and .357Sig is fast becoming a novelty round.

Regular Guy:Glocks come with 6" barrels if you ask real nice. They still perform like a defensive handgun round and not a hunting round.

OP: for dangerous game, I recommend a shotgun. Seriously. Fuck a bunch of pistols that average a projectile less than .45 caliber and less than 14" of penetration. If I'm faceing an animal that can tear my face off and wear it like a mask, I'm going to go to BassPRo and buy a cheap stevens 350 and load it with Brennek slugs, then laugh all the way home with my 36" of penetration and .74caliber projectile with an average expansion of about 75%
Opinions subject to change in light of new information.
Image
http://i.imgur.com/wG6ZMjE.jpg

User avatar
Gingerbread Man
ZS Lifetime Member
ZS Lifetime Member
Posts: 10834
Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 10:05 am

Re: .357 SIG vs. .40 S&W vs. .357 magnum

Post by Gingerbread Man » Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:11 am

Doc Torr wrote:Regular Guy:Glocks come with 6" barrels if you ask real nice. They still perform like a defensive handgun round and not a hunting round.
There are no factory Glocks that come in 9x25mm nor with 6" barrels in 9x25mm. The 9x25mm by far out performs a defensive handgun as is more potent than a 357 magnum. Plenty of folks hunt with a 357, 9x25mm is an easy fit for what the OP is looking for.
Shrapnel wrote "nobody is trying to be a dick and give out warnings for every little thing" :|
Image
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DS1icEssOUM

Doctorr Fabulous
ZS Lifetime Member
ZS Lifetime Member
Posts: 12210
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:06 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: Evil Dead, Zombieland, 28 Days/Weeks Later

Re: .357 SIG vs. .40 S&W vs. .357 magnum

Post by Doctorr Fabulous » Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:14 am

I meant in .357 sig. 9x25 dillon is intriguing, but I'm not a reloader...yet.

No 10mm? I thought all th cool kids wanted G20SFs.

Ninja Edit: If I were gonna do a 9x25 Glock, I'd do it all Lone Wolf. Custom LW frame with Badass McGee water dip, LW longslide with "factory" night sights and milled for an RDS, and LW 9x25 barrel.
Last edited by Doctorr Fabulous on Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Opinions subject to change in light of new information.
Image
http://i.imgur.com/wG6ZMjE.jpg

User avatar
Gingerbread Man
ZS Lifetime Member
ZS Lifetime Member
Posts: 10834
Joined: Mon May 17, 2010 10:05 am

Re: .357 SIG vs. .40 S&W vs. .357 magnum

Post by Gingerbread Man » Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:16 am

Doc Torr wrote:I meant in .357 sig. 9x25 dillon is intriguing, but I'm not a reloader...yet.

No 10mm? I thought all th cool kids wanted G20SFs.

Sent via Neural Net Uplink
Oh yeah, 357 Sig. :oops:

I still will stick with a 10mm but the OP is looking at a bottle necked and uber power out of a semi auto. I think 10mm is more than enough, IMO.

9x25mm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9x25_Dillon" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Shrapnel wrote "nobody is trying to be a dick and give out warnings for every little thing" :|
Image
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DS1icEssOUM

User avatar
PistolPete
ZS Moderator
ZS Moderator
Posts: 6577
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 12:31 pm
Location: St Louis

Re: .357 SIG vs. .40 S&W vs. .357 magnum

Post by PistolPete » Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:46 am

Regular Guy wrote: There are no factory Glocks that come in 9x25mm nor with 6" barrels in 9x25mm. The 9x25mm by far out performs a defensive handgun as is more potent than a 357 magnum. Plenty of folks hunt with a 357, 9x25mm is an easy fit for what the OP is looking for.
Nor is there any factory ammo to speak of. It's a terrible idea as a cartridge unless you are a handloader. You keep bringing it up in different threads, I think you need to buy one already. :-)

5" and 6" barrels are readily available in all calibers for Glocks at reasonable prices. Yes, 5" and 6" barrels extend past the slid on many frames. I don't know that it's a terrible thing. You're getting extra velocity but not the extra sight radius. But RG we know how you hate those Glocks with the holes in the slides, so we wouldn't want to suggest one of those. :lol:

I think for a hunting handgun one could do worse than a Glock 24 with a 357 sig barrel. It would be nice if Glock made the 20 in a longer frame as well, but to build one of those you need to cobble one together out of aftermarket parts, increasing the cost a fair bit.
Steemit, where I write stuff now

Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first.
- Mark Twain
Image

Doctorr Fabulous
ZS Lifetime Member
ZS Lifetime Member
Posts: 12210
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:06 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: Evil Dead, Zombieland, 28 Days/Weeks Later

Re: .357 SIG vs. .40 S&W vs. .357 magnum

Post by Doctorr Fabulous » Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:58 am

PistolPete wrote:
Regular Guy wrote: There are no factory Glocks that come in 9x25mm nor with 6" barrels in 9x25mm. The 9x25mm by far out performs a defensive handgun as is more potent than a 357 magnum. Plenty of folks hunt with a 357, 9x25mm is an easy fit for what the OP is looking for.
Nor is there any factory ammo to speak of. It's a terrible idea as a cartridge unless you are a handloader. You keep bringing it up in different threads, I think you need to buy one already. :-)

5" and 6" barrels are readily available in all calibers for Glocks at reasonable prices. Yes, 5" and 6" barrels extend past the slid on many frames. I don't know that it's a terrible thing. You're getting extra velocity but not the extra sight radius. But RG we know how you hate those Glocks with the holes in the slides, so we wouldn't want to suggest one of those. :lol:

I think for a hunting handgun one could do worse than a Glock 24 with a 357 sig barrel. It would be nice if Glock made the 20 in a longer frame as well, but to build one of those you need to cobble one together out of aftermarket parts, increasing the cost a fair bit.
OP mentioned bear and large cats, or I might agree with you.
Opinions subject to change in light of new information.
Image
http://i.imgur.com/wG6ZMjE.jpg

Post Reply

Return to “Handguns”