.357 Sig opinions

[dgludwig]

For what it's worth, more than once while reading reviews on the .357 SIG, I saw claims that the bottleneck case is inherently a better configuration for reliable feeding from a magazine than a straight case is. No one argued that it ever made much difference in the "real world" but, if true, even "slightly" better feeding/reliability would be a plus for any pistol being used for self-defense.

[pblanc]

The more reliable feeding of the bottleneck 357 SIG cartridge is often cited as an advantage.

And I have never had a failure to feed while shooting 357 SIG with my SIG P229s. But then I have never had a failure to feed shooting .40 S&W with the same two pistols, and I have shot a whole lot more of that.

If you shoot ammunition with significantly different velocity with the same handgun using the same sights, for example 357 SIG versus .40 S&W, the higher velocity ammunition will typically shoot to a lower point of impact using the same sight picture than the higher velocity ammunition does.

The higher velocity ammunition gets out of the barrel more quickly so muzzle rise from recoil has less effect on it. SIG Sauer uses different height sights for 9 mm and 357 SIG than they do for .40 S&W on the same pistol.

[TruthTellers]

5 years ago I was big into .357 Sig. I mean, 15 rounds of .357 Mag power with 125 grain bullet ballistics in a more reliable feeding bottleneck case? What's not to like? A few things, namely price, limited ammo options, and increased reloading difficulty.

I bought 450 rds of bonded .40 JHP last month for $170, had I bought the same amount of .357 Sig, it would have cost $200 more. Is .40 slower and weaker? Yes, but it's still a good stopper. Were .357 Sig the same price as .40 S&W, I'd buy it. I was hoping when the Army adopted the P320 that they'd adopt it in .357 Sig, but they didn't and with LEO's moving to 9mm more and more, the .357 is more likely to meet that demise everyone keeps saying .40 will.

Also, if I want more power in a semi auto, I'm more likely to buy a 10mm now that it seems to be making a comeback and the 135 grain Underwood 10mm is 100 fps faster with a heavier, larger bullet for the same price as .357 Sig JHP ammo is.

I own two 40 caliber Glocks, I could buy the barrel and do the conversion, but I decided a long time ago it wasn't worth doing and that .357 Sig didn't offer me much more in capability.

[SDF880]

357SIG is my EDC and has been for sometime! Check out some of the Underwood 357SIG ammo! As others have said you can mix and match most 357SIG and 40S&W barrels and mags I swap them around in my Glocks, M&P. and SIG's quite often and never any issues!

[2wheelwander]

My next gun purchase will be a 226/229 in .40 or .357 sig. Regardless, I'll buy the other barrel. Wanted another .40 besides my G22. This solves 2 problems.

[Onward Allusion]

The barrel was $99, and my understanding is that you don't even need a new magazine for 357 sig.

Caveat - only experience is with Glock on 40/357. If using for SD, I'd recommend swapping out the 40 follower to that of a 357. Although I've never experienced any issues using 357 Sig cartridges in an OEM 40 Mag. The followers have a more aggressive angle for 357.

[tipoc]

In the pic below is a 357 Sig barrel for the P229. You can see the mags are marked for both rounds. I would not automatically assume that all pistols can do the same (though I don't know why not) so check before guessing.



On the 357 Sig round feeding better than straight cased rounds: I've never had an issue with 9mm feeding well, or 40 S&W, 38 Super or 45acp. Provided that the gun and mags are in good shape and the ammo was properly built. None of that ammo has an inherent issue with feeding. No manufacturer says "This new caliber is great it just doesn't feed very well! Buy some now!" They all feed.

tipoc

[Dan-O]

I can squeeze an extra 357sig round into my .40 s&w factory mags and never had a feeding issue.

So for example glock 27 mags hold 10 rounds of 357sig, glock 23 mags hold 14 rounds of 357sig, etc.

[AK103K]

In the pic below is a 357 Sig barrel for the P229. You can see the mags are marked for both rounds. I would not automatically assume that all pistols can do the same (though I don't know why not) so check before guessing.

Just an FYI, my P239 in 357 SIG was an early gun, and its mags would only take 357SIG. There was an offset in the mag at the neck on the round. .40 S&W rounds would not fit into the mag because of it.

Later P239 mags that I acquired would in fact, take both.


Not my mags, but examples...

357SIG...the seam along the witness holes is where the shoulder would ride.


357SIG & .40S&W....no seam


Never encountered this with my P226 and P229 mags.

[Bart Noir]

If using for SD, I'd recommend swapping out the 40 follower to that of a 357.

The comment was for Glocks, I believe, so my info is not necessarily arguing with that in the slightest. But the .40 caliber magazines for the S&W M&P are marked for both calibers. And they work fine for both.

AK, I scored a few P239 mags marked for .40 which have 8 round-counting holes

They were sold as factory blems and were half-price, which I appreciated. This was early last year when the P239 was freshly discontinued and magazines were getting hard to find. They work fine for both calibers also.

Bart Noir

[AK103K]

Price of SIG mags was always a sore spot for me. Well, the guns too for that matter.

Ebay is often a great place to get good deals on them. I just scored a lot of three, P220 Compact mags that look to be brand new, if they arent, for $45 shipped. They usually sell for $35-40 ea. elsewhere.

[Ruger45LC]

I do like the 357 SIG but at the same time, I struggle to see a real need for it. There's no question it's potent, factory stuff is pretty decent and you can reload it to be a monster, I've done it. I'm not sure if it will ever really make a comeback unless quite a few LEO agencies start adopting it. The 10mm "comeback" I think is more of a fad, it's gotten popular based on it being loaded to the max, but again, without major support for it, it's never going to be 9mm, .40 or .45 popular.

To me, the 357 SIG is more worthwhile as a barrel swap for an existing .40 pistol, I'm not so sure I'd buy a 357 SIG pistol, although I have before. As a secondary option to the .40, it makes sense.

[Cosmodragoon]

A conversion barrel is probably the way to go. The .357 Sig gets pretty close to the beloved 125-grain loads in .357 magnum; with more than double the capacity and a form factor that can be easier to carry. Paul Harrell has a couple of good demonstrations on .357 Sig. While they are done as caliber comparisons with .40 S&W and .357 magnum, they'll give you a good idea of how it performs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrcSO5wErJw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9iuN-JBCXE

In my humble opinion, it's the best way to accomplish what some people try to reach for with radically hot 9mm +whatever. With hardcast or sharp copper solids like those "extreme penetrators", I think it'd be a surprisingly good woods round in a lot of places.

[Bottom Gun]

With hardcast or sharp copper solids like those "extreme penetrators", I think it'd be a surprisingly good woods round in a lot of places.

I agree. My woods carry rounds use the Lehigh Defense “Xtreme” copper bullets in my Sig P229. I feel that’s pretty good firepower. I replaced my Gold Dot loads with the Lehigh copper bullets after my last close encounter with a large and very bold black bear not far from my home. I want as much penetration as I can get when I’m I the forest.

The .357 Sig has become my favorite round. It’s hard hitting and flat shooting with modest recoil.
You have to reload though to fully enjoy this cartridge. Factory ammo offerings are limited and expensive. Despite some ongoing negative comments on reloading this cartridge, it’s really no harder to reload than any other bottleneck cartridge. Reloading takes this round to a new level.

[lockedcj7]

Since you've already got the Glock 22, just buy a .357 Sig barrel for it and go shoot. If you also want a dedicated gun, you won't go wrong with the Sig P229.

I did almost the reverse. I had a bunch of .40 S&W with no gun to shoot it in and didn't really want one. Just about that time, I got a great deal on a 229 in .357 Sig that came with a boatload of ammo. I bought an extra barrel in .40 and now I have one platform to shoot both calibers.

[Red Devil]

Going the route of the .40...?

Pfft!

The .40 is a great cartridge, and the "Men's Tee" isn't going anywhere.

As for the .357Sig?

Have a 5.3" LWD .357Sig Bbl. for my G23 .40's - and shoot S&B 140 gr. FMJ-FP and HDY Custom 147 gr. XTP at 1300+ fps as a field loads.

Basically a point-blank 9mm Euro at 200 yards.




Red

[peacefulgary]

I kinda like the 357 Sig cartridge, but it really doesn't accomplish anything more than a 9mm+p+ will accomplish.

At least the .40 will offer a heavier slug than the typical 357 Sig or 9mm+p+ round.

[silvermane_1]

The 357Sig is a very good caliber for what it was meant to do, also it has the benefit of being able to easily converting to a 40 S&W, so it's basically a 2 in 1 gun, as others mentioned the only "real downside" is 40 S&W mag capacity.

[dontcatchmany]

I do not have a semi specifically dedicated to 357 Sig. However I have 4 40s and three of them have a 357 Sig barrel and a 9 mm barrel and mags.

One of the 40s (FNS 40) rides in my truck with the 357 Sig barrel.

I like the 357 Sig and the 40.

The first time I shot 357 Sig was in the FNS 40 with a 4" barrel. The round is very accurate. I shot it that first day out to a tree at 100 yards. Shocked me that I hit just a couple of inches away from where I was aiming. The round has a very straight/flat trajectory. It is loud and it does have a large flash.

I have a 50 foot back yard range and do not get to shoot beyond that. Actually, this thread reminds me that I need to cycle through some 357 Sig ammo and I may do that tomorrow.

For riding in my truck, I used Underwood 125 gr bonded JHP and I have some 147 gr Underwood that I have never shot.

Three of my 40s are 3 in 1 guns.

OP get a 357 Sig barrel and there are chances that the 357 Sig will work in your guns 40 S&W mags. Mine do, however I have lots of extra mags.

[Cosmodragoon]

I kinda like the 357 Sig cartridge, but it really doesn't accomplish anything more than a 9mm+p+ will accomplish.

Underwood is a trusted manufacturer of higher-powered ammunition. Here is a fair comparison.


9mm +p+ 124 grain Bonded Jacket Hollowpoint

Listed velocity: 1300 fps

357 Sig 125 grain Bonded Jacketed Hollowpoint

Listed velocity: 1475 fps

One is clearly more powerful than the other. Let's also not forget that the .357 Sig is built for that kind of pressure. The 9mm +p+ is really pushing the envelope for what 9mm pistols can handle. Even if your particular pistol can handle it, can it do so on a regular basis? How much extra wear and tear is involved?

If you want to launch this kind of projectile from a semi-auto at speeds in excess of 1250 fps, .357 Sig is the way to go.

[disseminator]

I agree with Cosmo, there really is no comparison.

The question one should ask is: is 357 SIG the best cartridge for the application.

Application is everything IMO.

[AK103K]

One is clearly more powerful than the other.

Well, sorta, on paper anyway. Going strictly by the numbers on paper, one has "a bit" more power, but its really nothing major. But, if youre going strictly by the numbers, the 357SIG does win in the math department.

Let's also not forget that the .357 Sig is built for that kind of pressure.

While I agree, thats true for most of them, but I think what's being missed here is, with 9mm, you dont have to practice with +P+ to remain proficient. There is really little difference in how the gun shoots with standard 9mm, and +P+ (or 357SIG for that matter). We arent comparing the difference in .38 wadcutters vs 357mag full power loads here.

I had a Glock 31, and I have a number of 17's. My one 17 has at this point probably double plus the number of rounds of +P+ 9mm through it than my 31 had 357SIG through it, yet my 17 only shows some minor finish wear on the underside of the slide, where the 31 was battering itself to death shooting 357SIG. So there are exceptions to the "made to handle" thing. The 31 never showed signs of stopping the battering, where the 17 is still chugging along without issue, and after 140000 rounds of standard, +P, and +P+ 9mm, is still only polishing the finish on those two spots on the slide.

As I said before, Ive been on both sides of this little argument, and while I like the 357SIG, I personally just dont see the "math", here, and from all angles, not just the paper velocity numbers.

If you like 357SIG, Im sure it wont let you down, if you can afford the ammo these days, and youre well practiced with it. Truth be told, if you buy the same model gun in 9mm, and use it in practice, youre going to be ahead, both in skills and money, and I seriously doubt you will notice any difference in shooting them.

Or you can keep it simple, and just use 9mm guns, and keep +P+ in your carry gun.

[Bottom Gun]

I don’t like to shoot +P+ in my 9MM pistols. While a good quality pistol may stand up to it for a while, I don’t know of any pistol that is specifically designed to withstand a steady diet of +P+ ammo. I believe +P+ will eventually take its toll on a 9MM pistol. If I need more power than 9MM, I would rather shoot .38 Super or .357 Sig in a pistol that was designed for the cartridge.

The .357 Sig is my favorite carry round. I wonder how many of those being so negative on .357 Sig have actually owned one?
The sole negative I can see for the .357 Sig round is the lack of variety in available factory ammo. It’s one cartridge that you need to reload to get full enjoyment of it. But, being a reloader, I can practice with .357 Sig and it’s no more expensive than 9MM. Also, each of my Sig pistols is easily convertible to .40 S&W or 9MM if I choose to do so, which I often do.
My P239 is the most versatile of my Sigs. I can go from 9MM to .40 S&W or .357 Sig with a simple barrel swap.
The larger P229 and P226 pistols can easily swap .40 S&W and .357 Sig barrels but to change them to 9MM requires a slide swap as well. Sig makes a caliber conversion (entire top end) for that purpose.

[pblanc]

Originally Posted by Bottom Gun

I don’t like to shoot +P+ in my 9MM pistols. While a good quality pistol may stand up to it for a while, I don’t know of any pistol that is specifically designed to withstand a steady diet of +P+ ammo. I believe +P+ will eventually take its toll on a 9MM pistol. If I need more power than 9MM, I would rather shoot .38 Super or .357 Sig in a pistol that was designed for the cartridge.

The .357 Sig is my favorite carry round. I wonder how many of those being so negative on .357 Sig have actually owned one?
The sole negative I can see for the .357 Sig round is the lack of variety in available factory ammo. It’s one cartridge that you need to reload to get full enjoyment of it. But, being a reloader, I can practice with .357 Sig and it’s no more expensive than 9MM. Also, each of my Sig pistols is easily convertible to .40 S&W or 9MM if I choose to do so, which I often do.
My P239 is the most versatile of my Sigs. I can go from 9MM to .40 S&W or .357 Sig with a simple barrel swap.
The larger P229 and P226 pistols can easily swap .40 S&W and .357 Sig barrels but to change them to 9MM requires a slide swap as well. Sig makes a caliber conversion (entire top end) for that purpose.

If I want 9 mm and I want fast, I too would rather shoot 357 SIG from my P229s than 9 mm +P+, and I do have a 9 mm caliber X-change kit for those pistols.

But I do not see many posters in this thread being "so negative" regarding the 357 SIG round, unless not gushing over it as some type of "wonder cartridge" is being negative.

Most of us who do shoot 357 SIG have mentioned its accuracy and flat trajectory as well as potentially better barrier penetration.

On the other hand, compared to 9 mm, 357 SIG does have more perceived recoil and less magazine capacity.

Compared to both 9 mm and .40 S&W, 357 SIG is louder and creates more muzzle flash. And for those of us who do not reload, it is undeniably more expensive to shoot.

Compared to .40 S&W, 357 SIG JHP projectiles typically have a smaller expanded diameter and create crush channels in tissue of smaller volume and slightly smaller diameter.

None of these points are matters of opinion. Whether or not they represent drawbacks depends on your situation and what you are trying to achieve.

[tipoc]

I had a Glock 31, and I have a number of 17's. My one 17 has at this point probably double plus the number of rounds of +P+ 9mm through it than my 31 had 357SIG through it, yet my 17 only shows some minor finish wear on the underside of the slide, where the 31 was battering itself to death shooting 357SIG. So there are exceptions to the "made to handle" thing. The 31 never showed signs of stopping the battering, where the 17 is still chugging along without issue, and after 140000 rounds of standard, +P, and +P+ 9mm, is still only polishing the finish on those two spots on the slide.

This has more to do with the gun than with the round. When Glock initially introduced it's guns in 40 S&W and a four years later in 357 Sig they rushed them into production. Glock chose to use the same strength recoil springs in the 40 S&W guns as they did in the 9mm guns (with a slightly heavier slide as I recall). They essentially took a 9mm gun and placed two more powerful rounds in the gun. Both rounds in Glocks developed a reputation for battering themselves. It became a factor in earlier retirement of Glocks from law enforcement use than for their guns in 9mm. That may have changed this, I understand, in the last decade or so. So the durability of the Glocks with 40 S&W and 357 Sig may have been resolved.

On the other hand when Sig introduced their guns in 40 S&W they took their time to build a gun for it. Their durability with both rounds has been, reportedly, greater at least in the decade or more after initial introduction.

The difference, over a variety of bullet weights, is clear both on paper and in actual use. The 357 Sig is more powerful. Also recoils more.

tipoc