Why no .357 sig rifle/carbines?

[jimbob86]

No, I meant the x51-a mag full of fat cased 147 gr pistol bullets would be heavier than the same number of much more powerful 5.56x45 with 62 gr bullets, as the heaviest part of a cartridge is the bullet ...... you'd get fewer of the .357SIG cartridges in a mag of the same size, compared to the 5.56, with less range, less power, less penetration, more weight, at additional cost ...... where's the up side? ..... Other than you like the cartidge?

They did away with the 7.62x51 NATO/.308 WIN to get more capacity, trading the power and range that they felt was unnecessary (at the time) for that increased capacity ...... you are advocating trading some of that capacity for even less energy and range?

Where is the up side?

[xxxleafybugxxx]

I see what you are saying. The overall length of the round is in fact longer than the 9, 40, and 45, but the diameter of the shell (at its largest) is very similar to the 9. However, it is slimmer than the 40, and the 45.
I know that in America, the general consensus for handgun ammo is a big slug moving slowly will cause maximum damage. But as far as I know, they are still using this cartridge in eastern Europe/Asia. I havn't seen any reports on this rounds, lethality, all I know is I can get it cheap, and its a nasty little round to shoot

[jimbob86]

I am not sure you do: What I am saying is that there is no upside to switching from the 5.56x45 carbine the troops have now to, at considerable expense, a carbine chambered in a weaker cartridge. The current round (5.56x45) is lighter (basic load considerations), the case is smaller in diameter (magazine capacity issues) and it is much more powerful and has much greater range than a carbine chambered in .357SIG. The 7.62x25 is lighter and smaller than the SIG round, but it is still underpowered and as heavy as the current round. Where is the benefit to this?

The only complaints against the current round are that it is not powerful enough, and it lacks range for many of the actions in Afghanistan ...... picking a weaker round, without any benefit is ....... silly.

[xxxleafybugxxx]

I never implied, or called for a switch for military cartridges... I was just speculating as to why there weren't more civilian options for this round, whether it be a pistol, or carbine. I would certainly love for my personal use, a carbine that shot 7.62x25. Never did I say to replace what the military is using, and replace with this round. My comment about the ppsh was more speculation than anything.

[jimbob86]

My appoloies if I misunderstood, which it appears I have.

....but the reasoning would be the same, I think: With 5.56 carbines and ammo for same as common as dirt, why would anybody want to special order something that is harder (often meaning more expensive) to feed when it offers no advantage?

If there was a viable market, somebody would make this ......

Jeff Cooper wanted a Scout Rifle, and had several custom made for him, because there were no production models available ..... Custom work is expensive, but if that is what you want, and you have money and can find a 'Smith with the skills ....... it is possible you could come to an agreement.

[xxxleafybugxxx]

Touching on the 5.56 issue, It would certainly be silly to replace a high powered rifle round with a pistol cartridge. Although, I have heard many stories of the 5.56 not doing the trick when it comes to putting down the enemy.. sort of like those 9mm stories. I personally am a bigger fan of 7.62x39, if they could make a rifle to shoot it accurately.

I don't need to make a custom carbine/pistol. I could spend my money on other guns . I'll just settle with my CZ52 for my 7.62x25 needs.

[jimbob86]

I don't need to make a custom carbine/pistol. I could spend my money on other guns

And thus, there are none, because there is no market for them.

[Willie Lowman]

Lone Wolf makes a AR-15 lower that takes Glock mags. Rock River makes a .40 S&W AR-15 upper. Use the Lone Wolf lower with the bolt and receiver from the RRA. All you need is to have a .357 Sig barrel made.

[johnwilliamson062]

doesn't someone make a kit that turns glocks and 1911s into a carbine? Longer barrel and such? Might be easy to mod one of those to a 357 sig.
I get all excited about PCCs, but no interest whatsoever in 357 sig.

[Stonefly_Soldier]

pistol caliber carbines come into their own in short to mid range. less recoil and better energy dump is where a pcc can come in over a rifle caliber like .223. given its a specific set of circumstances where a PCC has advantage. but there are times where they do exist. .223 is likely to go through and through at short ranges where the pistol round is going to dump all of its energy inside the target. plus pistol ammo is almost always cheaper to shoot than rifle.

I havent spent much time with 357 sig. but i love by friends 9mm hipoint carbine... if it were a 10mm i could see it as a good brush gun for coyote, fox, or things like porcupine(hard little suckers to kill).

[homefront]

There is a very good argument to be made for the .357 in a carbine, from a performance/cost perspective, IF you handload.

First, the .357 Sig cartridge case is based on the .40 S&W and uses a 9mm (.355") bullet. .40 S&W cases are as plentiful as dirt at most shooting ranges and are also easy/cheap to buy. 9mm bullets are in every handloading catalog and store that carries loading supplies.

When necked down to .357 Sig, the .40 S&W case ends up a hair shorter than a factory .357 Sig case. Normally, straight-walled, auto handgun cartridges (9mm, 40 S&W, 10mm, .45acp, etc.) headspace on the case mouth and brass that is too short tends to be inaccurate. HOWEVER, since the .357 Sig headspaces on the shoulder (and not the case mouth), this creates no problems.

Next, the .357 Sig represents a big jump in performance over most automatic handgun rounds (with the exception of the 10mm; however, brass for the 10mm is expensive to buy and almost impossible to get for free at the range). This exceptional performance is even further enhanced in a carbine. Here are tables showing the differences in velocity obtained in various barrel lengths: http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/357sig.html

For comparison, here are the tables for the 9mm Luger, which fires the same bullets as the .357 Sig: http://www.ballisticsbytheinch.com/9luger.html

Looking at and comparing both sets of tables, both cartridges pick up a good deal of velocity in the transition from a 4" handgun barrel to a 16" carbine barrel, as expected; however, due to it's greater powder capacity, the .357 Sig picks up an ADDITIONAL 200fps. This is significant, especially when you consider trajectory and energy at 100-150 yards.

Using carbine-length barrels also opens up possibilities for experimentation with the slower pistol powders.

So... you can readily get .40 S&W brass cheap (or free), .357 Sig loading dies are plentiful, and 9mm bullets are abundant and relatively inexpensive. If you handload, you can inexpensively provide yourself with lots of ammunition that will outperform your 9mm, 40 S&W or .45ACP, either in a handgun or a carbine.

Your .357 Sig carbine will shoot flatter and hit harder at longer ranges than the other cartridges, too.

Of course, if you don't handload, the economic gain certainly isn't there. For the non-handloader, the 9mm is probably the best bet for the money in an auto carbine.

[JimDandy]

As I understand it, most pistol cartridges do not really benefit much from the longer carbine barrel compared to a full-size (5") pistol barrel. One of the exceptions to this rule is the .357 magnum; velocities are significantly higher from a carbine than from a revolver.

I owned a Marlin Camp 9 for a while. It was a nice little gun, but I decided that I'd rather just have a .22 for plinking/range use.

TMann

I watched one of those intelligence insulting specials on the history/military channel with Jeff Probst or whatever his name is, the former army ranger and air force para rescueman or some such.... and they mentioned the .45ACP got a fairly good sized boost out of the Thompson M1

[silvermane_1]

leafybug:
i heard of folks experimenting with hi-power carbines in 40 S&W and getting 357sig bull bbls. for them, that might be the route to go if you want a carbine in 357sig.

FYI for you folks out there, the main reason 357sig is more expensive than 9mm Para, even though it is the same size bullet, the 357sig bullet is more robustly built to handle the greater velocities without fragmenting, just putting it out there cuz i see so many 357sig vs. 9mm +P+ threads.

[jmr40]

Pistol caliber carbines are all but dead in any caliber. The advent of carbines built on the AR platform have replaced them. Cheaper to build quality guns, use the same ammo and larger capacity magazines as full size rifles, same basic size and weight as a pistol caliber carbine, less chance of over penetration when compared to pistol rounds, and much more effective perfomance.

The only pistol calibers that serve any useful role are the ones chambered in calibers like 357, 44 mag etc. that can use heavy bullets and be effective for deer, back bear size hunting.

[SIGSHR]

Pistol caliber semiautomatic carbines are somewhat moribund at present, the Marlins and the Rugers are out of production. And the 357 Sig has not been that big a seller.

[2damnold4this]

.223 is likely to go through and through at short ranges where the pistol round is going to dump all of its energy inside the target.

I disagree. The .223 is more likely to fragment or expand at close range than it is at long range. In military FMJ loads, pistol caliber rounds are unlikely to do anything but poke a small hole as it passes through the target while 5.56 FMJ might fragment and dump all its energy.

[jimbob86]

There is a very good argument to be made for the .357 in a carbine, from a performance/cost perspective, IF you handload.

Not.

First, the .357 Sig cartridge case is based on the .40 S&W and uses a 9mm (.355") bullet. .40 S&W cases are as plentiful as dirt at most shooting ranges and are also easy/cheap to buy. 9mm bullets are in every handloading catalog and store that carries loading supplies.

From a cost standpoint, 55gr FMJ component bullets are cheaper than jacketed 9mm of any weight. Lead and copper are expensive. Twice as much or more are needed to make the .355 pistol bullets.

When necked down to .357 Sig, the .40 S&W case ends up a hair shorter than a factory .357 Sig case. Normally, straight-walled, auto handgun cartridges (9mm, 40 S&W, 10mm, .45acp, etc.) headspace on the case mouth and brass that is too short tends to be inaccurate. HOWEVER, since the .357 Sig headspaces on the shoulder (and not the case mouth), this creates no problems.

The .357 SIG headspaces on the case mouth. That is what my Speer #13 says, and a couple other manuals, too ...... Not only will the headspace be wrong, but making the already short neck even shorter will not leave a whole lot to grip the bullet .... PARTICULARLY if you use the shorter bullets (you stated cost was a factor, and shorter=lighter=cheaper): the ogive (curved portion of the bullet) begins sooner ..... not much area for gripping the bullet is a recipe for bullet set-back, and bullet set-back in a tiny cased high pressure round like the SIG can make for an exciting trip to Splodeyville: Ka-Boom!

There's a reason there are none out there: It's a dumb idea with no upside, and lotsa liability issues waiting to happen.....

[homefront]

Some published info on reloading .40 Smith brass to .357 Sig:

"The .357 SIG headspace is determined by the shoulder, not the case mouth, just like the .400 Cor-Bon and virtually every other rimless or rebated rim bottle neck cartridge. Probably why people have frequently and successfully used necked down .40 S&W brass to make .357 SIG cases, even though the .40 S&W is over .020" shorter."

http://www.realguns.com/archives/001.htm

And:

http://www.realguns.com/archives/112.htm

[CCCLVII]

If I was going for a Semiautomatics Pistol Caliber Carbine it would be a 50AE.

I really dont see the reason for a 357 sig over a 357 magnum if they where both semiautomatics (like the Desert Eagle).

[homefront]

For carrying concealed.