The .357sig and why it didn't make it.

[locosway]

Obviously it did make it as there are several agencies across the US who use the round. But, it never really made it. Perhaps it's because it's new to the scene. However, I really like the ballistics of the round. But, is 200-300 fps more on a 9mm bullet enough to justify the difference in magazine capacity?

If ammo prices were irrelevant, and you were able to buy enough rounds to satisfy all of your hobby needs, would you not choose the .357sig over a 9mm or .40S&W?

[jshoebot]

I would choose .357 sig over a .40 or a 9mm, if ammo was out there and reasonably priced. The ballistics are pretty damn close to a .357 magnum, and that's pretty cool coming from a semi-auto handgun IMO. The necked casing helps with feeding so it's arguably more reliable than the other two.. But I don't know for sure because I've never owned one. Only downside I see to it is the recoil is pretty snappy so your follow up shots won't be as quick as a 9mm. Also .357 sig is loud as all get out. But I like it, just wish ammo was more reasonable!

[jptopz]

The 357 Sig is a great round, I think it's not to popular because of the cost. who wants to pay $30 for standard practice ammo. If you reload if has it's issues to deal with, but it doesn't cost much more than reloading 9mm.

[Quiet]

Currently more state law enforcement agencies use the .357SIG then the .45ACP.
Also, several Federal law enforcement agencies have adopted the .357SIG.

[liftman]

I love the round, but maybe I'm just crazy cause I LOVE the my 10mm even more.

As far a it being snappy it's true, but even with my baby glock 33 and big hands that don't fit it very well it is very controllable. Sure it's not as soft as 9mm but still more than controllable. Like anything it just takes diligent practice.

And yes it is more expensive but..... Well worth it. Let's put it this way almost every 9mm, .40, .45 diehard freind I've introduced to the round and even the big 10mm has come to realize great the rounds really are.

I think most people are shooting with blinders on so to speak. So and so told them, or all knowing sales guy at their LGS told them .45acp is the end all be all, or .40s&w is the best all around pistol cartridge, or hey 9mm is the most cost efficient to shoot. Which may very well be the case but that's where it ends for a lot of shooters. That's what they get convinced of and it's sometimes impossible to get them to open their eyes to other options. I had a conversation the other day with a coworker that was dead set that the .45acp is the holy Grail. " but can the xyz shoot through a car window? I've personally done it with my .45". Me: well actually........

So to my point if more people lose the blinders and have an open mind the price would absolutely come down. Might take a while but, the more main stream it is the cheaper it will be hence 9mm low cost.

YMMV.

[sd_shooter]

My local Wally carries WW 357 Sig, so availability wouldn't be an obstacle.

But I already have handguns chambered in 357 Mag, 9mm, 40, 45 so I don't need another caliber regardless of the specs.

Wait..... I guess I do still 'need' a 44 Magnum and a 454 Casull!

[Cali-Shooter]

I'm going to have to disagree that the .357 sig didn't "make" it. It just isn't as massively popular as .40 S&W, .45 ACP, and 9mm is, at least among the civilian/non-LEO or non-Gov't agency population of shooters.

.357 Sig is more of a LEO agency used round for some reason. Like someone above mentioned, it isn't cost effective to practice shooting .357 sig vs. 9mm or another more common caliber, but .357 sig is definitely a contender for what it is, essentially a necked down .40 with higher velocity that is equally devastating as .40 S&W can be.

The .357 SIG appears to be a formidable intermediate between 9mm and .40 S&W. I've heard of some .40 S&W magazines being able to hold and reliably feed .357 SIG rounds as well for some handguns.

[para38super]

I own a 38 super so why buy a 357sig. Plus the 38 super lends it self to easier reloading.

[jshoebot]

The .357 SIG appears to be a formidable intermediate between 9mm and .40 S&W. I've heard of some .40 S&W magazines being able to hold and reliably feed .357 SIG rounds as well for some handguns.

Not sure of velocities of the .40 cals, but a .357 sig velocity is around 1300-1400 feet per second. That's .357 magnum territory, decidedly more powerful than 9mm or .40. But the price of .357 sig ammo is still too high for me to buy a G31. My buddy has one, so I'll just continue to burn up his ammo

[CHS]

Pshhh.. It's all about .400 cor-bon

[yellowfin]

It hasn't proved that the result of shooting something with it is different than another caliber. .45 we know puts down what it hits, we've had 100 years worth of results seen. .40 has had enough LE agencies using it that we know it works, right? Not 100 years, but probably 15 years times tens to hundreds of thousands of pieces carried 24/7. OK, so .357 Sig can theoretically put more energy onto a target--but does that work noticeably better, is it a needed improvement, or is this all on paper?

[IEShooter]

.357

I've heard of some .40 S&W magazines being able to hold and reliably feed .357 SIG rounds as well for some handguns.

This is true. I have a Glock 22 in .40 and also have .357 Sig and 9mm barrels for it. The .40 magazines and .357 ones are interchangeable and work just fine, probably due to the fact the .357 is a .40 cartridge necked down to 9mm.

I've heard that some folks have had extraction issues with their .40 Glocks when running a 9mm barrel and have had to replace the extractor, but mine runs everything just fine.

In the Sheriff's training class for CCW I recently took they extolled the virtues of the .357 sig and claimed that the recoil impulse as measured by test instruments is more of a gentle curve versus the sharp spike of the .40 making felt recoil and wear and tear on the gun less. What they really liked was the deep penetration with hollow points due to the extra velocity.

My personal experience is the .40 does seem to have a bit sharper recoil but that could be my imagination.

Went shooting some .357 recently and did notice the rounds get down range lickety split. Pretty cool to watch when shooting at clays at 100 yards.

I'm a big fan of the round, though yes it is a bit expensive to shoot.

[Cuda440]

It hasn't proved that the result of shooting something with it is different than another caliber. .45 we know puts down what it hits, we've had 100 years worth of results seen. .40 has had enough LE agencies using it that we know it works, right? Not 100 years, but probably 15 years times tens to hundreds of thousands of pieces carried 24/7. OK, so .357 Sig can theoretically put more energy onto a target--but does that work noticeably better, is it a needed improvement, or is this all on paper?

Testing has shown that the 357sig performs much better than the 9, 40, 45's when shooting through barriers like windshields, car doors, and body armor. If I were LEO, and I wound up in a LA shootout type situation with bg's in body armor, I would prefer to have the 357.
BTW, my G31 will hold 16+1, only one less than a G17, and ammo is $18 - $20 a box.

[Snapping Twig]

Bottleneck cartridge so it's harder to reload. That's where it goes off the rails.

Want .357 performance in a semi auto?

Buy a Coonan. They're in production now.

[steamboat]

A man I used to work for had a .357 sig. I shot it and liked it a lot. The felt recoil was low enough to make me wonder, at the time, if it was all it was cracked up to be. Certainly more controllable than the 40 cals I was shooting next to it...

I wouldnt say it failed. Why isnt it more popular? Cause its expensive and hard to find. Most shooters I know have never even heard of it.