[ARCHIVED THREAD] - .357 Sig (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 6/11/2015 7:48:51 PM EDT
| Is it just me or is there a growing intrest in .357 Sig compared to a few years back? Local shops in my area can't seem to keep them in... Mainly the Gen4 G33 and G31. |
|
Quoted:
I just went 9 from 357. Ammo is insane on price and I found myself using the 9 convo or 40 barrel and never shooting 357. Cool cartridge other than that it is loud and snappy recoil compared to 9. My EDC is a Gen4 33 and I love it. But was looking for a Gen4 31 as a light woods gun. Guess I'll just get a Sig barrel for my RTF 22 and call it a day.. Close enough to a Gen4 frame. |
|
I have an RTF22 as well. I've always thought about the 357. What barrel would you get?
Quoted:
My EDC is a Gen4 33 and I love it. But was looking for a Gen4 31 as a light woods gun. Guess I'll just get a Sig barrel for my RTF 22 and call it a day.. Close enough to a Gen4 frame. Quoted:
Quoted:
I just went 9 from 357. Ammo is insane on price and I found myself using the 9 convo or 40 barrel and never shooting 357. Cool cartridge other than that it is loud and snappy recoil compared to 9. My EDC is a Gen4 33 and I love it. But was looking for a Gen4 31 as a light woods gun. Guess I'll just get a Sig barrel for my RTF 22 and call it a day.. Close enough to a Gen4 frame. |
|
Quoted:
I have an RTF22 as well. I've always thought about the 357. What barrel would you get? Quoted:
I have an RTF22 as well. I've always thought about the 357. What barrel would you get? Quoted:
Quoted:
I just went 9 from 357. Ammo is insane on price and I found myself using the 9 convo or 40 barrel and never shooting 357. Cool cartridge other than that it is loud and snappy recoil compared to 9. My EDC is a Gen4 33 and I love it. But was looking for a Gen4 31 as a light woods gun. Guess I'll just get a Sig barrel for my RTF 22 and call it a day.. Close enough to a Gen4 frame. Nothing fancy.. I would go with a Glock factor barrel. |
|
I jumped on the 357 band wagon when it first came out. Bought a sig p229 in 357 and while I was there at the gun shop, I bought a Barsto 40 s&w barrel for 50 bucks. Some one had just dropped off the barrel for nothing and the shop owner wanted it out of there. So two calibers for one gun.
I shoot the 357 a bit since I happened upon some Remington practice ammo for 11 bucks a box at the gun show. I carry Speer gold dot when cc'ing. I look for 40 and 357 on sale then shoot what I find just by switching the barrel. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have an RTF22 as well. I've always thought about the 357. What barrel would you get? Quoted:
Quoted:
I just went 9 from 357. Ammo is insane on price and I found myself using the 9 convo or 40 barrel and never shooting 357. Cool cartridge other than that it is loud and snappy recoil compared to 9. My EDC is a Gen4 33 and I love it. But was looking for a Gen4 31 as a light woods gun. Guess I'll just get a Sig barrel for my RTF 22 and call it a day.. Close enough to a Gen4 frame. You ever doing a suppressor? Threaded might be the way to go. If you are not doing threaded I would get Glock. Plinker Lown Wolf. Precision or comp KKM Bar-sto or Storm Lake Nothing fancy.. I would go with a Glock factor barrel. |
|
Quoted:
You ever doing a suppressor? Threaded might be the way to go. If you are not doing threaded I would get Glock. Plinker Lown Wolf. Precision or comp KKM Bar-sto or Storm Lake Nothing fancy.. I would go with a Glock factor barrel. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have an RTF22 as well. I've always thought about the 357. What barrel would you get? Quoted:
Quoted:
I just went 9 from 357. Ammo is insane on price and I found myself using the 9 convo or 40 barrel and never shooting 357. Cool cartridge other than that it is loud and snappy recoil compared to 9. My EDC is a Gen4 33 and I love it. But was looking for a Gen4 31 as a light woods gun. Guess I'll just get a Sig barrel for my RTF 22 and call it a day.. Close enough to a Gen4 frame. You ever doing a suppressor? Threaded might be the way to go. If you are not doing threaded I would get Glock. Plinker Lown Wolf. Precision or comp KKM Bar-sto or Storm Lake Nothing fancy.. I would go with a Glock factor barrel. Thought about a threaded barrel considering I'm running a Tirant 45 on my G30 (KKM barrel). And it's a multi purpose caliber can with a piston swap. |
|
Quoted:
One of my favorite calibers and I'd love to get a 32 at some point, but God the ammo is pricey I have a G32.3 and it has taken up safe queen duty ever since I got my G19.4. I stopped carrying it after 10 years because I wanted a pistol that I could pull out of the holster swap the mag to FMJ ammo and blast, then after I am done put the carry ammo back in and reholster to carry again. I could not do that with my 32 because ammo is to expensive to shoot and I have a G23.4 to shoot 40 as I found myself using the 40 barrel in my 32 to shoot at the range. 9mm is the clear winner in my book .357 Sig does not offer any benefit over the 9mm IMO. |
|
My first Glock was early G31.3 (no rail). It was accurate, but too light for follow up shots. It was over five years before I tried Glock again, then I got a G19.2 in a trade and fell in love. All my pistols are Glocks now and none are .357. It's too damned expensive to shoot and too flippy to shoot fast. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
If ammo prices on the Sig cartridge went down would the safe queens be back to carry guns? Me I just buy in small amounts.. 1 box defense and 1 box range ammo once or twice a month. I bulk buy on .45 and .40 To answer you question No. More recoil for no ballistic advantage. Loud to shoot when compared to 9 or 45. If you have 40 why add another caliber. |
|
Quoted:
To answer you question No. More recoil for no ballistic advantage. Loud to shoot when compared to 9 or 45. If you have 40 why add another caliber. Quoted:
Quoted:
If ammo prices on the Sig cartridge went down would the safe queens be back to carry guns? Me I just buy in small amounts.. 1 box defense and 1 box range ammo once or twice a month. I bulk buy on .45 and .40 To answer you question No. More recoil for no ballistic advantage. Loud to shoot when compared to 9 or 45. If you have 40 why add another caliber. I currently have a G32, G33, G30 and G22.... So not adding another caliber just though about getting a Gen4 G31. |
|
Quoted:
I currently have a G32, G33, G30 and G22.... So not adding another caliber just though about getting a Gen4 G31. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If ammo prices on the Sig cartridge went down would the safe queens be back to carry guns? Me I just buy in small amounts.. 1 box defense and 1 box range ammo once or twice a month. I bulk buy on .45 and .40 To answer you question No. More recoil for no ballistic advantage. Loud to shoot when compared to 9 or 45. If you have 40 why add another caliber. I currently have a G32, G33, G30 and G22.... So not adding another caliber just though about getting a Gen4 G31. I would get a 40 barrel for range trips and just swap them. Yes get a Gen4! |
|
Quoted:
I would get a 40 barrel for range trips and just swap them. Yes get a Gen4! Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If ammo prices on the Sig cartridge went down would the safe queens be back to carry guns? Me I just buy in small amounts.. 1 box defense and 1 box range ammo once or twice a month. I bulk buy on .45 and .40 To answer you question No. More recoil for no ballistic advantage. Loud to shoot when compared to 9 or 45. If you have 40 why add another caliber. I currently have a G32, G33, G30 and G22.... So not adding another caliber just though about getting a Gen4 G31. I would get a 40 barrel for range trips and just swap them. Yes get a Gen4! My 30 and 33 are Gen4s.. Love the Gen4s. 32 is a Gen3 and the 22 is RTF. I'll probably just go the route of a Sig barrel for the 22... Save some cash and call it a day. |
| I've got a P226 in it and had a G33 and conversion barrel for a g35 for a time. I didn't care for the extra recoil/flip in the 33 so it moved on down the road along with the G35 later. The P226 is pretty easy to shoot and I have a bunch of ammo left for it since it was my former duty gun. Still doesn't get shot much. I'm not convinced there is a big benefit to the .357 round over 9/40. |
|
Quoted:
I like the 357 Sig for SD, about 1,350 fps/ 500# KE from my Glock 32. If one doesnt think it matters whether a 9mm bullet has 350# or 500# KE, they are not going with it. It is a round for energy oriented folks. I think defensive ammo is being crafted to fall into ballistically optimum spectrum. Meaning traditional heavy hitters are being tuned back and weaker ammo is being tuned up. For example the commercial loads for 10mm vs the hunting specialty ammo. For whatever ballistic advantage. 357 hs over 9mm, it is set back by more recoil, lower capacity, and cost. Even if you do buy hot ammo all your doing is getting more recoil and over penetration without increasing the stopping power. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
I had a G32 and a .40 conversion barrel.
I mainly shot a lot of 40 then traded it off on some other project. To me, .357Sig is at the top of the 9mm bullet scale. You have 9, 9+P, +P+, then the .357Sig. If you are on a budget, 9 and +P9 will do anything you want. For the hotrodders, this is a fun and potent round. |
| It's a well designed round. I've read that feeding is more reliable because of the bottleneck design. I don't know if that's true, but I never had any issues with my .357 SIG P239. I might own it in a G23/32 configuration. It's got a lot of bark. Seems like it would be a good woods gun in a hardcast load. Will a G32 barrel work in a 19? |
|
Quoted:
It's a well designed round. I've read that feeding is more reliable because of the bottleneck design. I don't know if that's true, but I never had any issues with my .357 SIG P239. I might own it in a G23/32 configuration. It's got a lot of bark. Seems like it would be a good woods gun in a hardcast load. Will a G32 barrel work in a 19? I had more than a few double feeds with 229. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
It's a well designed round. I've read that feeding is more reliable because of the bottleneck design. I don't know if that's true, but I never had any issues with my .357 SIG P239. I might own it in a G23/32 configuration. It's got a lot of bark. Seems like it would be a good woods gun in a hardcast load. Will a G32 barrel work in a 19? No the barrel hood is longer on the 40 and 357 it will not fit in a 19. |
| More recoil an no ballistic advantage? Dumbest statement of the thread congrats! 9mm isn't even remotely in the same class, particularly with the idiotic notion of 147 gr. Loads that so many love today. You're getting 38 special delivery for 2 extra RDS and just a little less recoil? Great trade off there. No the 357 SIG is what a 9 wishes It was, don't get me wrong with the proper load a 9 will work fine, but there are a limited number of proper loads, all if which are +p or +p+. No 150-200 fps more is a large jump in power, period. I have 2 357's and wouldn't trade either for the finest 9 mm to protect myself, period. The whole recoil/ noise argument is stupid at best, in the real world of use and not just punching paper you will not feel any recoil or hear the shot, my small better half can run my 357's scary well, we are taking 5 ft Nada, 110 lbs. Sorry but with mindset you can master anything. |
|
Quoted:
More recoil an no ballistic advantage? Dumbest statement of the thread congrats! 9mm isn't even remotely in the same class, particularly with the idiotic notion of 147 gr. Loads that so many love today. You're getting 38 special delivery for 2 extra RDS and just a little less recoil? Great trade off there. No the 357 SIG is what a 9 wishes It was, don't get me wrong with the proper load a 9 will work fine, but there are a limited number of proper loads, all if which are +p or +p+. No 150-200 fps more is a large jump in power, period. I have 2 357's and wouldn't trade either for the finest 9 mm to protect myself, period. The whole recoil/ noise argument is stupid at best, in the real world of use and not just punching paper you will not feel any recoil or hear the shot, my small better half can run my 357's scary well, we are taking 5 ft Nada, 110 lbs. Sorry but with mindset you can master anything. Could you actually back that up with real data ....... instead of dealing in conjecture and gun store logic do your research. 9 vs 357 was put to rest a long time ago even 9 vs 40 vs 45. It is widely accepted and proven that all pistol service calibers have no ballistic advantage over each other. The mystical knock down power has been debunked. I carried a 357 for better part of a decade I never shot anyone with it but I do not feel under gunned in the least bit switching to 9mm. Seems to me the dumbest statements come to the caliber loyal people who still believe one service caliber pistol round holds a "large jump in power, period". |
|
Quoted:
I think he did put more data to it than your last statement. The .357 sig has better ballistics period. It isn't really up for debate. Now, just like the 9mm vs .40 threads, you have to decide how much gun you want. What better ballistics..... Penetrations, expansion, weight retention, etc etc??? The only thing the Sig does better than any other cartridge is through glass performance and the difference is not that much different than every other service caliber. I have done the research the differences in the "REAL WORLD" are negligible and sometimes the cartridge does not perform better than other service cartridges it actually preforms worse (Depending on load). Some loads they do not penetrate deep enough, do not expand properly, or the round fragments which can be said for just about every cartridge. I used to love my Sig till I came to reality and learned differences between service cartridges and real world performance. Please tell me where these better ballistics are what does the Sig do that 9, 40, 45 do not do just the same. None of them have knock down power................ On that note he put up "more data".... I am not claiming the Sig is a ballistically better cartridge I am claiming it is equal with all service calibers and the differences are negligible. I am truly interested to see these better ballistics. |
|
Quoted:
What better ballistics..... Penetrations, expansion, weight retention, etc etc??? The only thing the Sig does better than any other cartridge is through glass performance and the difference is not that much different than every other service caliber. I have done the research the differences in the "REAL WORLD" are negligible and sometimes the cartridge does not perform better than other service cartridges it actually preforms worse (Depending on load). Some loads they do not penetrate deep enough, do not expand properly, or the round fragments which can be said for just about every cartridge. I used to love my Sig till I came to reality and learned differences between service cartridges and real world performance. Please tell me where these better ballistics are what does the Sig do that 9, 40, 45 do not do just the same. None of them have knock down power................ On that note he put up "more data".... I am not claiming the Sig is a ballistically better cartridge I am claiming it is equal with all service calibers and the differences are negligible. I am truly interested to see these better ballistics. Quoted:
Quoted:
I think he did put more data to it than your last statement. The .357 sig has better ballistics period. It isn't really up for debate. Now, just like the 9mm vs .40 threads, you have to decide how much gun you want. What better ballistics..... Penetrations, expansion, weight retention, etc etc??? The only thing the Sig does better than any other cartridge is through glass performance and the difference is not that much different than every other service caliber. I have done the research the differences in the "REAL WORLD" are negligible and sometimes the cartridge does not perform better than other service cartridges it actually preforms worse (Depending on load). Some loads they do not penetrate deep enough, do not expand properly, or the round fragments which can be said for just about every cartridge. I used to love my Sig till I came to reality and learned differences between service cartridges and real world performance. Please tell me where these better ballistics are what does the Sig do that 9, 40, 45 do not do just the same. None of them have knock down power................ On that note he put up "more data".... I am not claiming the Sig is a ballistically better cartridge I am claiming it is equal with all service calibers and the differences are negligible. I am truly interested to see these better ballistics. And that is your opinion. The bottom line is it is superior. To most people a .30-06 is just as good as a .300WM, but it's not. An 12 second car is just as fast as an 11 second car, but it's not. It's easy to get relative performance out of something, but things go exponential when you get to a certain point. The sig pushes that envelope to get a bit more performance and it takes a lot to get there. It is a ballistically better, period. It is your opinion that you don't need the extra performance at the cost of capacity, noise, and recoil. |
|
And that is your opinion. The bottom line is it is superior. To most people a .30-06 is just as good as a .300WM, but it's not. An 12 second car is just as fast as an 11 second car, but it's not. It's easy to get relative performance out of something, but things go exponential when you get to a certain point. The sig pushes that envelope to get a bit more performance and it takes a lot to get there. It is a ballistically better, period. It is your opinion that you don't need the extra performance at the cost of capacity, noise, and recoil. That is not my opinion in any way shape or form that is facts that the .357 Sig is NOT ballistically an better than any other service caliber. You can claim all this extra performance out of the cartridge and believe it to be true but the fact is countless ballistic gel test show that in pistol calibers 9, 357, 40, and 45 have negligible differences. The FBI tested this and have switched back to 9mm concluding exactly what I am telling. The only thing the sig pushed the envelope on is snappier recoil, louder, and WAY more expensive than it should be. |
|
And velocity. I don't understand how this is confusing.
If you take the same pills and throw them faster it will result in better performance of the cartridge itself. Now if you want to weigh in a bunch of other aspects, sure it might not be the right fit for your application. But the cartridge itself adds velocity to even the hottest 9mm rounds. It is faster and has the ability to penetrate more. So depending on your bullet choice and functional spec. it can outclass the 9mm. It all depends on what your looking for. More capacity is 9mm, stepping up the energy could be a .357. ETA: I don't really care. I have 1 9mm and now .357 sig. |
|
Quoted:
And velocity. I don't understand how this is confusing. If you take the same pills and throw them faster it will result in better performance of the cartridge itself. Now if you want to weigh in a bunch of other aspects, sure it might not be the right fit for your application. But the cartridge itself adds velocity to even the hottest 9mm rounds. It is faster and has the ability to penetrate more. So depending on your bullet choice and functional spec. it can outclass the 9mm. It all depends on what your looking for. More capacity is 9mm, stepping up the energy could be a .357. ETA: I don't really care. I have 1 9mm and now .357 sig. Faster does it mean more penetration. Take for instance +P versions of 9mm vs 9mm standard pressure 124gr in some instances the standard pressures penetrated deeper and even deeper with heavier loads 147 which were slower. The velocity gain in the 357 Sig has actually made some loads mediocre performers because it cause the projectile to come apart . Also that velocity gain has made some loads penetrate and have zero expansion the just zip straight through the gel. As far as tissue performance I can say a .357 Sig to the back of the head on a 150-175# hog at no more than 5m away does do the job. Ask me how I know..... |
|
Quoted:
And that is your opinion. The bottom line is it is superior. To most people a .30-06 is just as good as a .300WM, but it's not. An 12 second car is just as fast as an 11 second car, but it's not. It's easy to get relative performance out of something, but things go exponential when you get to a certain point. The sig pushes that envelope to get a bit more performance and it takes a lot to get there. It is a ballistically better, period. It is your opinion that you don't need the extra performance at the cost of capacity, noise, and recoil. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think he did put more data to it than your last statement. The .357 sig has better ballistics period. It isn't really up for debate. Now, just like the 9mm vs .40 threads, you have to decide how much gun you want. What better ballistics..... Penetrations, expansion, weight retention, etc etc??? The only thing the Sig does better than any other cartridge is through glass performance and the difference is not that much different than every other service caliber. I have done the research the differences in the "REAL WORLD" are negligible and sometimes the cartridge does not perform better than other service cartridges it actually preforms worse (Depending on load). Some loads they do not penetrate deep enough, do not expand properly, or the round fragments which can be said for just about every cartridge. I used to love my Sig till I came to reality and learned differences between service cartridges and real world performance. Please tell me where these better ballistics are what does the Sig do that 9, 40, 45 do not do just the same. None of them have knock down power................ On that note he put up "more data".... I am not claiming the Sig is a ballistically better cartridge I am claiming it is equal with all service calibers and the differences are negligible. I am truly interested to see these better ballistics. And that is your opinion. The bottom line is it is superior. To most people a .30-06 is just as good as a .300WM, but it's not. An 12 second car is just as fast as an 11 second car, but it's not. It's easy to get relative performance out of something, but things go exponential when you get to a certain point. The sig pushes that envelope to get a bit more performance and it takes a lot to get there. It is a ballistically better, period. It is your opinion that you don't need the extra performance at the cost of capacity, noise, and recoil. Say the 11 second car is a 56 Belair and the 12 second car is a 08 Corvette, the 56 is faster but it doesn't handle anywhere near as good in the curves. The point is the difference in ballistics is too minimal to overlook the other characteristics of the rounds. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
No, the argument was that the .357 sig adds nothing but noise, flash, and recoil. The bottom line is it adds a considerable amount of velocity too.
As I said, it depends on your requirements. Ballistics is the study of multiple variables, we agree on that, and it may or may not make the .357 sig attractive to you. But don't make the argument that it doesn't add anything to the picture, because it adds speed. |
|
Quoted:
No, the argument was that the .357 sig adds nothing but noise, flash, and recoil. The bottom line is it adds a considerable amount of velocity too. As I said, it depends on your requirements. Ballistics is the study of multiple variables, we agree on that, and it may or may not make the .357 sig attractive to you. But don't make the argument that it doesn't add anything to the picture, because it adds speed. It is a pistol cartridge, no service caliber has enough speed to do the damage of a rifle cartridge. Until you get into large magnum loads the differences between cartridges is negligible to the point the whole "which caliber is better" essentially is they all are pretty much the same. Bullet design tailored to the velocity ultimately wins because it penetrates X distance and expands Y width, and has Z retained weight. |
|
Quoted:
No, the argument was that the .357 sig adds nothing but noise, flash, and recoil. The bottom line is it adds a considerable amount of velocity too. As I said, it depends on your requirements. Ballistics is the study of multiple variables, we agree on that, and it may or may not make the .357 sig attractive to you. But don't make the argument that it doesn't add anything to the picture, because it adds speed. I don't deny it adds speed, but the extra speed is one check in the plus column where it gets many more in the negative column for more recoil, lower capacity, and higher price. If you look at the gelatin test picture in the article I posted you'll see the extra speed did not get much better results, not enough to overlook it's detractors. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
In the article they use essentially the same bullet. I don't think that proves anything except the hydrostatic shock is more severe with the .357.
Using a bullet that can take advantage of the .357's performance increase would show different results. It's the same argument over and over again with arfcom. No one will admit the .357 sig has potential, the .40 has a place, etc., etc., etc. |
|
Read Quoted:
In the article they use essentially the same bullet. I don't think that proves anything except the hydrostatic shock is more severe with the .357. Using a bullet that can take advantage of the .357's performance increase would show different results. It's the same argument over and over again with arfcom. No one will admit the .357 sig has potential, the .40 has a place, etc., etc., etc. This is how I know you need to do more study on handgun terminal ballistics. Hydrostatic shock is only of any benefit over about 2000 fps and even then it's often overstated. The velocity of the .357 Sig actually hurts its penetration under many circumstances and a bonded bullet is needed (which can limit expansion). |
|
Quoted:
Read This is how I know you need to do more study on handgun terminal ballistics. Hydrostatic shock is only of any benefit over about 2000 fps and even then it's often overstated. The velocity of the .357 Sig actually hurts its penetration under many circumstances and a bonded bullet is needed (which can limit expansion). Quoted:
Read Quoted:
In the article they use essentially the same bullet. I don't think that proves anything except the hydrostatic shock is more severe with the .357. Using a bullet that can take advantage of the .357's performance increase would show different results. It's the same argument over and over again with arfcom. No one will admit the .357 sig has potential, the .40 has a place, etc., etc., etc. This is how I know you need to do more study on handgun terminal ballistics. Hydrostatic shock is only of any benefit over about 2000 fps and even then it's often overstated. The velocity of the .357 Sig actually hurts its penetration under many circumstances and a bonded bullet is needed (which can limit expansion). +1. So what if its a little faster - the FBI and anyone with data to back it up says the terminal performance is the same as every other pistol cartridge. What w33 fails to realize with pistol cartridges is - all it needs to do to get a check in the performance box is meet penetration and expansion standards. Thats it. Pistol cartridges just poke holes. None of the service calibers are dragon slayers.... they are hole pokers. All things being equal, give me the cartridge that penetrates, expands, has the lowest recoil and the most capacity. Oh yea, its also the cheapest. 9mm. If you want to argue about it - go argue with the FBI. I don't care if you want to shoot a more expensive, higher-recoil, slower-split time, lower capacity round |
|
Quoted:
Read This is how I know you need to do more study on handgun terminal ballistics. Hydrostatic shock is only of any benefit over about 2000 fps and even then it's often overstated. The velocity of the .357 Sig actually hurts its penetration under many circumstances and a bonded bullet is needed (which can limit expansion). Quoted:
Read Quoted:
In the article they use essentially the same bullet. I don't think that proves anything except the hydrostatic shock is more severe with the .357. Using a bullet that can take advantage of the .357's performance increase would show different results. It's the same argument over and over again with arfcom. No one will admit the .357 sig has potential, the .40 has a place, etc., etc., etc. This is how I know you need to do more study on handgun terminal ballistics. Hydrostatic shock is only of any benefit over about 2000 fps and even then it's often overstated. The velocity of the .357 Sig actually hurts its penetration under many circumstances and a bonded bullet is needed (which can limit expansion). It really does feel better once you reach that enlightenment phase of handgun rounds. I used to be you exactly defending why 357 was so much better than anything else. Then I did my homework, experimenting and testing. I carried .357 Sig for better part of a decade and thought exactly like you then I enlightened myself about pistol rounds like we are trying to tell you. If you have a service caliber pistol 9x19, .357 Sig, 40SW, 10mm, 45ACP you are one the same playing field ballisticaly as everyone else. Handguns are pea shooter you want power go rifle. |
|
Quoted:
+1. So what if its a little faster - the FBI and anyone with data to back it up says the terminal performance is the same as every other pistol cartridge. What w33 fails to realize with pistol cartridges is - all it needs to do to get a check in the performance box is meet penetration and expansion standards. Thats it. Pistol cartridges just poke holes. None of the service calibers are dragon slayers.... they are hole pokers. All things being equal, give me the cartridge that penetrates, expands, has the lowest recoil and the most capacity. Oh yea, its also the cheapest. 9mm. If you want to argue about it - go argue with the FBI. I don't care if you want to shoot a more expensive, higher-recoil, slower-split time, lower capacity round Quoted:
Quoted:
Read Quoted:
In the article they use essentially the same bullet. I don't think that proves anything except the hydrostatic shock is more severe with the .357. Using a bullet that can take advantage of the .357's performance increase would show different results. It's the same argument over and over again with arfcom. No one will admit the .357 sig has potential, the .40 has a place, etc., etc., etc. This is how I know you need to do more study on handgun terminal ballistics. Hydrostatic shock is only of any benefit over about 2000 fps and even then it's often overstated. The velocity of the .357 Sig actually hurts its penetration under many circumstances and a bonded bullet is needed (which can limit expansion). +1. So what if its a little faster - the FBI and anyone with data to back it up says the terminal performance is the same as every other pistol cartridge. What w33 fails to realize with pistol cartridges is - all it needs to do to get a check in the performance box is meet penetration and expansion standards. Thats it. Pistol cartridges just poke holes. None of the service calibers are dragon slayers.... they are hole pokers. All things being equal, give me the cartridge that penetrates, expands, has the lowest recoil and the most capacity. Oh yea, its also the cheapest. 9mm. If you want to argue about it - go argue with the FBI. I don't care if you want to shoot a more expensive, higher-recoil, slower-split time, lower capacity round This thread could be turned into a 124 vs 147 and standard and +p 
|
|
You guys are really sad. You keep up with the same argument that it adds nothing.
The numbers don't lie, it adds velocity. With velocity comes kinetic energy. You can adjust the pills however you need to in order to take advantage of it. Yep it comes at a cost, but it adds speed.. Adding the ability for more velocity adds capability for the cartridge itself, always. As I said, if you want to claim that round capacity, recoil, noise, and flash are not worth the upgrade, fine. But don't argue it doesn't being anything to the table. Funny how no one ever argues that a 10mm isn't any better than a .40 or that a 45 super isn't any better than a 45. But somehow when we talk about the trusty 9mm then nothing is better. And that's how I know this augment is worthless. I am done, go tell your friends you tired someone out on the internet |
|
Quoted:
You guys are really sad. You keep up with the same argument that it adds nothing. The numbers don't lie, it adds velocity. With velocity comes kinetic energy. You can adjust the pills however you need to in order to take advantage of it. Yep it comes at a cost, but it adds speed.. Adding the ability for more velocity adds capability for the cartridge itself, always. As I said, if you want to claim that round capacity, recoil, noise, and flash are not worth the upgrade, fine. But don't argue it doesn't being anything to the table. Funny how no one ever argues that a 10mm isn't any better than a .40 or that a 45 super isn't any better than a 45. But somehow when we talk about the trusty 9mm then nothing is better. And that's how I know this augment is worthless. I am done, go tell your friends you tired someone out on the internet That is the point the added velocity means nothing till you reach Rifle round performance. No one argues about 10mm vs 10mm kurz because like the sig the argument was put to rest. Whether it is big and slow or small and fast until you get a projectile to reach above 2Kfps added speed and caliber are not factors. Projectile design is no. 1... Does the round expand, penetrate, and retain its weight. We are not picking on you or singling you out. You are where I was a few years ago and once I saw the light things made more sense. In fact some of your comments were almost verbatim things I once preached. It took a person like me to help me see the light and we are trying to help you. Alas this is my last bid as well but serious take some time read up and do the research is all we ask. Never said nothing is better than 9 in fact oasis they are equal but 9 is cheaper, more widely accepted and used, lower recoil, better capacity, and Wally World almost always has. |
|
Ok I am adding another comment. I didn't leave this argument by taking a shot at anyone.
I am plenty confident I understand physics enough to have this argument and I do not need to be educated in the subject by the masses of arfcom. I NEVER said I needed a 357 sig, anyone else does, or even that I own one. I said it adds performance, which it does, PERIOD. This argument about how much it is worth to the end user is a different argument, one I never attempted to make. In fact I said I do not own a .357 and do own a 9mm. It depends on your decision criteria. The FBI test linked says that they feel 12"-18" of penetration is the most important thing, followed by capacity and ease to shoot. This makes the 9mm the winner according to their criteria. I never said a damn thing about defensive shooting or any other specific reason for choosing the .357 sig. All I ever said was for people to quit saying it adds NOTHING but recoil, flash, and noise. Because it adds velocity. The entire argument you guys are having surrounding 2000fps is BS at best. If that was the case, the .44 mag would have no more practical potential than the .45 auto. Or the difference between the .38 special and .357 mag would be negligible. This is simply not the case. You cannot pick some arbitrary velocity and say that nothing below that matters. It depends on your requirements. I'm pretty sure, all other things being equal, everyone arguing with me would rather be shot by a 9mm than a .357 sig. As I said before, numerous times, it depends on your requirements for the round whether it is attractive to you or not. Example: "hey guys, I am looking to hunt deer with a handgun, would you choose a 9mm or .40?" -- "it probably doesn't matter much comparing those two, maybe you could look at a traditional revolver round." -- or "do you have a .45, lots of people have had good luck with that round without going into the elite auto cartridges." Example: "hey guys, I need a handgun to help protect me in northern Idaho . I won't be backpacking so weight isn't a huge issue. My choices are 9mm, 10mm, and .44 mag." -- "if your worried about big bears, bring a shotgun, if you have to use a handgun decide between capacity and real power (10mm vs .44)" -- "Try bear spray also, it works well." No one ever says, "9mm because it doesn't matter, none of them are 2000fps rifle rounds and 9mm has more capacity." |