This is a discussion on .357 sig choices within the Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; The 357 Sig caters to the lighter bullets and the .40 S&W caters to the heavier bullets. The .357 sig does something at 124 & ...
The 357 Sig caters to the lighter bullets and the .40 S&W caters to the heavier bullets.
The .357 sig does something at 124 & 125 weight that 40 S&W really can't. They curve about the same for a while, then you get to the 135 to 140 gr range and the 40 S&W does something the .357 can't really do as well. The factors include accuracy, power, penetration, etc. However the .357 sig loses vs the 40 s&w at a quicker rate. The .357 sig is a great round from a semi-auto that matches the potential of the .357 mag in a revolver.
So the simple thought process with .357 sig is keep around 125 gr for sd, up to 140 gr for 4 leg concerns, knowing you are giving up some of the inherent accuracy and penetration with greater weight. Most .357 sig firearms have a 40 S&W barrel drop in switch if you want a heaver round.
The .357 sig is a very accurate, penetrates well, and simply one of my favorite rounds, but it is a round designed to be like something at 125 gr, not 140 gr+.
I'm not a ballastic expert, so if I'm wrong, look forward to the read.
I have had a 357sig pistol for quite a long time. I have never felt under gunned to a .40s&w. On the contrary my experience has been that friends of mine that have switched barrels from 40 to .357 have never switched back.
The .357 sig, at the right gr, is considered inherently accurate than 40 S&W, with marginal overall increase SD performance vs 2 legs.
The three major disadvantages ofen stated concerning the .357 sig vs 40 s&w (when not considering gr) is snap / recoil, over-penetration, and set-back.
The .357 sig is a bit snappy vs 40 s&w. Marginal edge to 40 S&W on 2nd shot depending on shooter skill.
Over-penetration can be bad, under-penetration can be far worse.
The greatest concern I have concerning the .357 sig round is bullet set-back. I have seen .357 sig Glocks and Sigs that can set back a round. Last time I personally observed this was earlier this year. Most don't on the first time, a few do, but after a time, and depending on how hard it is done, chambering the same round is more likely to cause a set back at some point with a .357 sig more than other calibers. Sometimes it is the gun, sometimes the ammo, sometimes the shooter, etc. All are variables, but in general the .357 sig is more likey to set back than a 40 s&w.
Some people like 147 gr 9mm and some like the lighter loads.
For those in lov with the 147 for carry..
Any 147 gr. 9mm bullet pushed almost 200 fps (or more) in .357 SIG form can't be bad at all.
Living, He loved me
Dying, He saved me..
Recoil is in the hand of the beholder
Over penetration is too situational to be able to make a comparasion.
Set back can happen with any round. I will agree that early 357Sig rounds were more prone to suffer it. Not so much anymore.
So yes, it is bad!
Move. Shoot. Survive. ― The "Unofficial" Suarez International Doctrine
“The real man smiles in trouble, gathers strength from distress and grows brave by reflection.” ― Thomas Paine
I carry 125g Winchester ranger jhp's in my glock 32.
I recently chronographed this load and was pleasantly surprised to find it beating the 1350 fps factory velocity claim by 20 fps
posted via tapatalk using android.