Odd title. Forgive me. Comparing the .357 magnum cartridge performance to the Sig .357. Obviously, and not surprisingly, I am clearly missing something. . .

.357 magnum offerings from BB:

1. 3 inch S&W J frame

a. Item 19A/20-180gr. Hard cast LFN = 1302 fps
b. Item 19B/20-170gr. JHC, jacketed hollow cavity, = 1299 fps
c. Item 19C/20-158gr. Jacketed Hollow Point = 1398 fps
d. Item 19D/20-125gr. Jacketed Hollow Point = 1476 fps

2. 4 inch S&W L frame Mt. Gun

a. Item 19A/20-180gr. Hard cast LFN = 1375 fps
b. Item 19B/20-170gr JHC = 1411 fps
c. Item 19C/20-158gr. Jacketed Hollow Point = 1485 fps
d. Item 19D/20-125gr. Jacketed Hollow Point = 1603 fps

3. 5 inch S&W model 27

a. Item 19A/20-180gr. Hard Cast =1398 fps
b. Item 19B/20-170gr. JHC = 1380 fps
c. Item 19C/20-158gr. Jacketed Hollow Point = 1457 fps
d. Item 19D/20-125gr. Jacketed Hollow Point = 1543 fps

4. 6 inch Ruger GP 100

a. Item 19D/20-125gr. Jacketed Hollow Point = 1707 fps

5. 18.5 inch Marlin 1894

a. Item 19A/20-180gr. Hard Cast = 1851 fps
b. Item 19B/20-170gr. JHC = 1860 fps
c. Item 19C/20-158gr. Jacketed Hollow Point = 2153 fps Can you believe this?!!!
d. Item 19D/20-125gr. Jacketed Hollow Point = 2298 fps Or this?!!!

.357 Sig offerings:

Heavy 357 Sig. Low Flash Pistol and Handgun Ammo - 125 gr. Jacketed Hollow Point, 1,425fps/M.E. 564 ft. lbs., 20 Rd/Bx

Because you requested it, Buffalo Bore is now producing two full power 357 Sig. loads. These loads are full power 357 Sig. Not the watered down stuff that other factories are already producing. Why is it that a new cartridge gets developed with touted ballistics in the media, only to have the ammo manufacturers "water" it down after a few years on the market?, The same thing happened with the original 10MM, The 357 Sig. was designed to blast a 125gr. bullet at 1,425 FPS out of a four inch carry gun barrel., Not a much longer test barrel, So, that is what both our loadings do.

We use flash suppressed powder so that you wont be blinded by your own gun fire should you be required to drop the hammer in low light. Since over 90% of civilian shootings in America happen in low light, flash suppressed ammunition is a huge tactical advantage.

Item 25A utilizes the 125gr. Jacketed Hollow Point bullet. It is designed to open radically and penetrate roughly 12 to 14 inches in human tissue. Note my velocities from my real world pistol,, (sic) not a test barrel, below.

a. Sig. Mod. 229, 4 inch barrel - 1,430 fps, 567 ft. lbs.)

Item 25B utilizes a 124gr. FMJ flat nose bullet at 1,425 fps. This bullet will smash through typical stick frame walls, car doors and a bears skull or shoulder bones. It is designed for those who need deep penetration. It should penetrate 24+ inches in human tissue. If I were carrying a 357 Sig. for defense, I would carry my pistol with our 125gr. JHC, jacketed hollow cavity, loaded in the chamber and the top 4 or 5 rounds in the magazine. The remaining rounds in the magazine would be these FMJ flat nose loads. Why? After the first few rounds are fired in a fight, most opponents will be dead or behind cover. The FMJ flat nose loads will penetrate many types of cover that would stop a hollow nose bullet. Note my velocities, from my real world pistol,, not a test barrel, below.

a. Sig. Mod. 229, 4 inch barrel - 1,433 fps, 575 ft. lbs.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------
.357 magnum:
"4 inch S&W L frame Mt. Gun. . . Item 19D/20-125gr. Jacketed Hollow Point = 1603 fps"

.357 Sig:
"Sig. Mod. 229, 4 inch barrel - 1,430 fps, 567 ft. lbs. . . .125gr. Jacketed Hollow Point bullet"

Clearly I am missing something, I read about the .357 Sig "equaling" the 'Magnum' in ballistic performance with 125 gr. JHP or at least being comparable. Perhaps the .357 magnum is moving too fast and is interfering with expansion. I suppose I need to find a formula that relates velocity to JHP expansion? (Parenthetically, I wonder why the 5" barrel has a lower velocity than the 4" does with the 125 gr. bullet?)

I am confused, 125 gr. JHP@ 1603 fps versus a 125 gr. JHP @ 1430 fps. Is this a close enough for horseshoes and hand grenades type thing or (more likely) have I missed a lot.

I don't think most loads used in revolvers are max loads. I'm not saying it isn't done, I just don't think it's done as often as some would lead you to believe. Rifle loads shouldn't count since there is not a .357 Sig rifle load. If you figure that the Speer GD and Remington GS are pretty common for magnum then the majority of the Sig loads are right there. And being able to have 15 or so of that level of load with at least two more mags, then that takes you to 45 cartridges of some very good firepower. If I were a LEO then that would sound pretty enticing to me.

Perhaps I over quoted with rifle specs. . . just blindly pasted that, mea culpa .

I apologize for being a dolt but do not understand. I compared two identical cartridges using the producers own numbers, that would seem an honest comparison as they want to sell you either. I am in no way considering number of rounds expendable, merely the two rounds qua rounds. Not considering numbers of rounds, because in that case one would drag up the numbers for the magnum in much larger weights and point out that the Sig cannot do that. . . or possibly it can, I don't know. . .

I am a bit ignorant but willing to learn

The short answer is that real guns often differ 100fps from a test barrel or another gun because there are manufacturing tolerances in real guns. I've run quite a few rounds through a chrono at matches, and there is nothing unusual about this.

Regarding revolvers and semi-autos, the barrels are measured differently, with the revolver being measured from the front face of the cylinder. This somewhat offsets the revolver having a cylinder gap.

If you're surprised that the 9mm necked-down Sig cartridge (misnamed the .357, it is .355) not being equal to a .357 Mag revolver cartridge, lots of people noticed that the first time they ran them over a chrono. Why are you surprised that advertisers use the word "equivalent" when the product is not actually "equal"?
Would you buy a product because it is not as good, but costs more, and is harder to handload? No, but you might buy a product in the popular hi-cap "combat tupperware" that is "equivalet to the .357 Magnum" and "used by several major police forces."

Couple of points:
1. Shot placement is THE major factor in a shooting.
2. Handguns are puny compared to a rifle.

While ads and gun mag articles are not often outright lies, they are all "selected truth."

__________________
Science plus Art

Just a few random thoughts, not sure if any of this will help or make sense..

Some barrels are "faster" than others, due to manufacturing variances (even with same manufacturer), regardless (to a degree) of barrel length.

Some "boutique" ammo manufacturers tend to inflate certain things (like velocity) in order to make their product more "marketable" to a certain segment of the buying public.

Bullet penetration and expansion is based on many variables, such as bullet mass and velocity, bullet construction, the density of the target material, among other things.

When it comes to self-defense ammo, stick with the major manufacturers who actually produce their own hollowpoint bullet (winchester, federal, speer, remington, hornady, etc). These companies actually do the R&D and testing, and load their ammo for optimal results, based on that testing.

aristoclesgibson,
The bottom line between the two is the greater case capacity of the magnum. Ceteris paribus, the ability to put more powder in a cartridge usually equals more velocity. There are other, more minor, considerations:
Comments on the .357 SIG

A thoughtful and edifying response. Thank you. I was completely ignorant of barrel length measurement techniques but am well aware of the two diameters being different.

You wrote: "Why are you surprised that advertisers use the word "equivalent" when the product is not actually "equal"?
Would you buy a product because it is not as good, but costs more, and is harder to handload? No, but you might buy a product in the popular hi-cap "combat tupperware" that is "equivalet to the .357 Magnum" and "used by several major police forces."'

I did not type that advertisers used that word but some well may. My post involved alleged comments by guys like DiMaio, I have read on another board, e.g. "The .357 Sig is a superior choice because it duplicates the performance of the .357 magnum." Or this, on the magnum only, from a respected guy in the field: "We don’t do much .357 Mag testing anymore, as it simply is not used by the folks we test for, however, in past years, our testing of the lightweight 125 gr and under .357 Mag loadings often demonstrated insufficient penetration, while the 158 gr and heavier loadings frequently penetrated deeper than ideal for use on biped opponents. For those individuals who doubt evidence based research and prefer “street results”, the CHP, the largest agency to issue .357 Mag 125 gr JHP’s on the West Coast, clearly reports significantly better results in their officer involved shootings since switching to .40 S&W 180 gr JHP loadings, based on officer perception, objective crime scene measurements, as well as the physiological damage described in the relevant autopsy studies. The CHP used a variety of .357 Mag loads, depending upon what was available via the state contract. According to the published CHP test data from 1989-90, the .357 Magnum load used immediately prior to the CHP transition to .40 S&W was the Remington 125 gr JHP with an ave. MV of 1450 f/s from their duty revolvers.

To be honest, I no longer have much use for .357 Mag. I personally would prefer a good service pistol in 9mm/.40 S&W/.45 ACP over a .357 mag revolver for SD/duty use. Likewise, I always choose a 4-5" .44 Mag revolver (wouldn't mind a .41 Mag or hot .45 Colt) for any backcountry purposes and prefer the controllability and reduced blast/flash of .38 Sp +P loadings for urban self-defense use in 2-3" barrel revolvers.

The best modern .357 Mag loading we have tested has been the Winchester 180 gr Partition Gold (S357P):

.357 Mag Win 180 gr Partition Gold (S357P) from S&W 686 4”
BG: vel=1075, pen=18.1”, RD=.57”, RW=171.1gr
4 layer denim: vel=1090 f/s, pen=20+”, RD=0.53, RW=175.6gr
auto windshield: vel=1072, pen=20+”, RD=0.39, RW=178.0gr"

When viewed with this from here: http://le.atk.com/pdf/GoldDotPoster.pdf

"Sig 357 125 gr. GDHP Sig P226 1379 ave. vel. and 528 ft lbs. The 357 magnum 125 gr. GDHP S&W model 65 1189 ave. vel. 392 ft. lbs."

I suppose it might be a 3" model 65? The stuff I have quoted has an odor to me. It just doesn't smell right. Until I read something convincing I believe that the terminal ballistics of the .357 magnum are superior in the 125 gr. JHP even when examined only for the ability to damage an opponent. And, if a round from a 125 gr. JHP showed "insufficient penetration then it would seem a 125 gr. from a .357 would fail almost miserably. No? The gentleman quoted does not assert that it does not fail also but I do not buy that the .357 magnum I reference would "often demonstrate (ed) insufficient penetration".

I ask this here because I want to get some variety of thoughts.

My current belief, subject to change, is that if one examines the ability to stop with one shot, which most of this stuff you read is trying to quantify then unless you feel an army of 'ferals' will be attacking simultaneously, then the number of rounds becomes less relevant.

I don't know. . . I'm confusing myself

Understood and thank you. From all I can read and watch, BB is rather honest with their numbers. Soon, I will verify, empirically. I await several different offerings from them. I, actually, read an excellent empirical 'study' on this site.

God bless and thanks for the reply.

One last comment.
Having killed a large number of animals under various circumstances, I discount the endless, pointless, debate about "one shot stops" because of the underlying implication of the "one shot stop guarantee." (which you can't get in a handgun)
Bullet placement is the whole problem unless you are using a 20mm to blow rabbits into dust.

Given the circumstance of a captive animal, I can kill a full-grown hog with a .22 short first time, every time.

Given the circumstance of a wild animal on the loose, I can't place my shot that accurately, so I want something bigger. A 400lb boar ignored the hunter and kept attacking the dogs after 6 180gr .357 hits here and there. One 158gr bullet through the ear cut the brain stem and dropped him like a rock.

I don't worship at the alter of muzzle energy, and count shot placement first, penetration second, and to quote Eric, "everything else is angels dancing on the head of a pin."
(which is much more polite than my usual phrase "mental masturbation.")

__________________
Science plus Art

I always love that argument of shot placement being key. It's as if to say that if one is going to carry a magazine fed auto and that magazine is a double stack then you are only going to just spray the landscape with it. There is no consideration given to the fact that if one had a M&P .357Sig with fifteen cartridges in the loaded magazine, and those fifteen cartridges happen to be loaded with 125 grain hollow point bullets that only travel a measly 1,400 fps... And you have at least two more magazines in a belt carry ready to go to duty... Then clearly that is inferior to a huge number of six in the cylinder that go two hundred fps faster and have two six shot speed loaders ready to go. I didn't mean for this to be an auto vs. revolver kind of reply but really I don't see where else this is going to go. If it is purely a matter of bullet velocity, then why the devil do we keep the .30-30 WCF around when the .300 Win Mag is clearly so superior??? And then John Lazeroni has busted up the title of the Win Mag so why isn't that the top .30 used??? I'm sure there is another hot rod that I don't know about. I guess I'm just confused at the rationale of this line of questioning at this point. I just always figured that cops tend to carry four inch or shorter barrels. The .357 Sig was made to mimic as close as possible the 125 grain load from that similar barrel length. I have never once read it was supposed to mimic an eight inch plus barrel with a 158 grain bullet. But since I happen to be at least a minor fan of the .357 Sig and I get tired of all the Sig bashing maybe I'm just being a little uppity with all the attempts to figure it out. It's a 9mm bullet. It moves pretty darn fast. It can be fed from deep bottom feeder magazines. It has a pretty effective track record so far. It's a nice option in the 9mm vs .40SW debate that may never die. It's a nice challenge for hand loaders. It's a bottle neck cartridge that feeds so well I have even seen a gun hand cycle empty brass from the mag, into the chamber, and then fully extract. There are only about a hundred different flavors of 9mm bullets to choose from, plenty of powder choices to use, and since there are several agencies that use the cartridge there are also several great places to buy bulk once fired brass. So, while I like it, it's not as if I'm trying to convert anyone, nor do I feel the need to change out every auto I own to one. It's just another fun option there for us to choose from. And it doesn't hurt that all you need is a drop in barrel and suddenly you also own a .40 SW handgun as well. Yay! Choices!

Perhaps I failed to properly present my interrogatory. I lack the facility to do much better than to cite links and statements put forth like: "The .357 Sig is a superior choice because it duplicates the performance of the .357 magnum." Likely a paraphrase attributed to an authority, DiMaio. The question involves a single cartridge and its ability to perform vis-a-vis velocity and energy with mass being a wash. If one does click the GD link they will see the numbers I have cited a post or so back. I just do not buy the numbers cited for the .357 magnum cartridge. But am fine if I am wrong. I cited numbers put forward by BB that are very different and was curious. . . I have also seen MANY 'joe blow' testers who arrive at numbers that are quite consistent and disagree with what I saw cited by GD. Perhaps GD used some sort of anemic load for the magnum testing?

I started the thread and I thought made myself clear. The question concerns a single round of the same weight and I was trying to approximate the gun but after some replies it might be difficult. I am in no way trying to "talk" about or apologize for the revolver. You wrote:

"I guess I'm just confused at the rationale of this line of questioning at this point. I just always figured that cops tend to carry four inch or shorter barrels. The .357 Sig was made to mimic as close as possible the 125 grain load from that similar barrel length. I have never once read it was supposed to mimic an eight inch plus barrel with a 158 grain bullet."

That in no way replies to my original query. I am unclear as to the 158 gr. 8 1/2" barrel thing, perhaps someone else broached it as a topic? I already posted that my original post brought in superfluous information. Anyway, ~200 fps is, in my mind, significant, for a 125 gr. handgun projectile, yes. As I stated, I am a bit ignorant of this.

I am sorry I failed to coherently present my question and admit I got sidetracked a bit presenting my beliefs on the nuttiness of modernity. I apologize if this thing has been disjointed. In no way was it meant to denigrate any one cartridge or the other! It was a curiosity for me to read the assertions I was reading. Sans doubt this is all old hat to you guys, but I am a bit newer, perhaps more reading and less questioning is the way to go

In the end, what else is involved if the projectile and priming mechanism and barrel are identical or roughly identical? Cartridge volume, and? To my way of thinking that makes any attempt to make the Sig equal or superior a conscious choice on the part of the loader. No?

Edit: Never mind. I just wanted to ask that with velocity as a sole parameter, and projectile being identical as well as barrel, how could it not be the case that the magnum is not superior. See the GD .pdf

???!!??
If you somehow got this from my post on shot placement, you completely missed my point, and I am saying no such thing.
My point actually supports the idea that the .357 Sig can be the equivalent of a .357 mag if both are shot with equal accuracy and both penetrate sufficiently. Neither will guarantee positive results with "nicks and misses." Both are capable of "flipping the switch" with proper shot placement for personal defense. Exact muzzle energy produced by each is largely academic, and does not translate directly to effectiveness, either in defense or hunting.

From Alaska Fish and Game:
Firearms and Ammunition

There are no simple answers when it comes to selecting a firearm and accompanying ammunition. How accurately you shoot is far more important than the type of rifle, cartridge, and bullet you choose. Alaska has some very large game animals, including 1600-pound mature bull moose and 1500-pound coastal brown bears. Moose or brown bear hit in the gut with a large caliber magnum rifle such as the popular .338 Winchester® Magnum is wounded and just as likely to escape as if it had been hit with a small caliber rifle such as the .243 Winchester®. The bore size, bullet weight, and velocity are of secondary importance to precise bullet placement in the vital heart-lung area.

Firearms and Ammunition for Hunting in Alaska, Alaska Department of Fish and Game

__________________
Science plus Art

You are using data from a "designer ammo manufacturer" and not from a "normal" ammo manufacturer.

Winchester Super X JHP ammo is reported to generate 1450 fps in the .357 Magnum and 1350 fps in the .357 Sig using a 125gr bullet. Remington and Federal are reporting the same numbers. The .357 Sig is supposed to deliver performance "close to" that delivered by the .357 Magnum but in a semi-auto pistol. I think that's close enough to qualify, don't you?

__________________
Freedom is never free!!
SWCA #3437

That observation fits with what I have been thinking. If one chooses to they can make almost any rounds roughly equal or de facto equal with respect to velocity, with equal bullet weights; BUT it says nothing about the cartridge's potential. You just load one anemically and one moderately or whatever (please note the GD page that I linked where the velocity is significantly HIGHER for the sig round and has been the genesis of my whole question). I suppose the manufacturers you name must have certain defined amounts of propellants for each round. I chose BB because they tend to 'load 'em up!' and when they loaded both up it was obvious that as far as velocity goes, the magnum is getting close to 180 fps (173 fps, actually) more even in the light 125 gr. bullet, using roughly equivalent barrels. Now, I think as a percentage of 1430 fps, 180 fps is quite a significant chunk, don't you? ~12.5%. . . I had originally thought that it was not just the ammo manufacturers whim (or perhaps a sort of recipe dictated whim) but was an inescapable fact. I am learning, sloooowly

Does anyone know where I can buy a 14 shot .357 mag the same size as my Glock 32?

I agree with the info posted by MaximumBob. I retired from the Lousiana Stae Police some 8 years ago after 29 years of service. I started out in 1975 with a S&W 4" 66 loaded with 357's. I soon switched to a 6" M66 and later to a 6" Nickel M19, now loaded with 140gr. Magnums. Needless to say, when one unholsters a 6" nickel magnum, it gets everyone's attention. All crooks know that it's not issue and the owner may be a shooter. I bought and went to the 357 Sig 125 Ranger Talon in a Sig P226 when they became available. I wound up with (2) tu-tone guns for carry and a black one for training. I still have all three. The 357 Sig round delivers as advertised and is almost im possible to make it jam. Reloading takes a little more effort but it's not impossible. Add a 40 barrel and shoot either. To me, it's all good. Bob!

I think you are also missing the point the the 357 mag and sig are two completely different cartridges, the Magnum is a rimmed case primarily for use in revolvers using a .357 bullet, the sig uses 9mm bullets in semi auto's. Designed to achieve magnum performance in a semi auto platform. That is also why you will have a hard time finding sig loads greater than 125 gr.

1) I asked about the cartridge NOT handguns.
2) My question was predicated on things like the GD .pdf link posting figures that the SIG round was moving significantly faster.
3) I was trying to get an idea of what the cartridges were actually capable of.
4) I found a producer that is known to load 'em up to their potential. The numbers he printed seemed much more in line with common sense based on nothing more than perceived cartridge potential.
5) I limited my query to a single issue, to wit, VELOCITY. I realize there are MANY more factors. I asked here because I wanted to make sure I was clear on the issue.
6) It is probably through my own fault the signal has been drowned by the noise.

Final conclusions:

The .357 Magnum cartridge is clearly superior, although not vastly, to the .357 Sig.

The .357 Sig cartridge is absolutely a viable alternative especially when one factors in the amount of firepower

There are many factors involved in studying a round and its concomitant damaging ability.

Rifle rounds are vastly superior.

Debating about the handguns that fire these cartridges is something folks glom onto even when one doesn't require it to answer their question.

QED. Thanks to all who replied.

I'm at a loss. I didn't mean to sound so defensive, honest. And I most certainly wasn't trying to be a know it all thread troll. I feel like there is still something I'm missing here. I guess if the two were put side by side in pressure testing barrels then the magnum would win hands down from the shear amount of case volume for powder capacity. The magnum has the history and the record of function in duty. The Sig has modern powders that make some of the miracle ammo we use now today. Bullets don't even need the amount of velocity they once needed to expand. But that is besides the point. I'm still confused at the original question I think. Perhaps this is similar to the .307 Win vs. the .308 Win. The .307 Win was made to give the 1894 as close to a .308 load as the action could stand. Are they equal to each other? Not quite. Are they horse shoes and hand grenades close, I suppose. But the .307 Win gave enough good times to hunters that it now has that cult following. The .357 Sig may be regarded as the same type of issue. But it has a few more followers. And I still say it makes a bang up good third option in the short cartridge game until you grow up and buy a .45 ACP...

There I had to finally say it...

Here is your quote:
"The .357 Magnum cartridge is clearly superior, although not vastly, to the .357 Sig."

Define "superior" if you please..

They are very different cartridges, with different case geometry, different case capacity, and they perform very differently except when you restrict the domain to a 125gr projectile in a specific (@ 4 inch) barrel length.

The .357mag can be loaded up or down (pressures and velocities), with light or heavy bullets, and with rounded or flat profiles. It is clearly more "versatile", and is better suited for certain applications (woods carry for black bear defense, etc), but not as good as a high-capacity semi-auto for LE applications.

There is nothing wrong with the 357sig round, except maybe for the price of plinking ammo.. I will stick with 9x19 for personal use in a semi-auto, but that's me. The ability of the 357sig to penetrate hard/intermediate barriers and still achieve acceptable penetration and expansion in soft targets (I.e. carbon-based lifeforms) makes it a terrific choice for LE personnel.

I am aware of what I typed. I am also aware I stated early on I was only curious about the velocity, the entirety of this has been predicated on velocity, ergo the notion of superiority should be clear.

Original Question:

"I am confused, 125 gr. JHP@ 1603 fps versus a 125 gr. JHP @ 1430 fps. Is this a close enough for horseshoes and hand grenades type thing or (more likely) have I missed a lot." I have gone to state clearly why it was what I was really concerned with velocity, cf. below.

"Superior" contextually speaking = higher muzzle velocity. I have attempted to make this clearly the only parameter. I have explained why it is the only parameter I was concerned with, ad nauseum.

At the risk of being sickeningly REDUNDANT, GD link has an example of a round of being fired from what I assume are roughly equivalent barrels and has the Sig with a significantly higher velocity. Evidently the fact is, even when one constrains it to a like projectile (125 gr.) from a like barrel (~4") the .357 magnum case still exceeds the velocity of the Sig by roughly 12.5%, according to the numbers published by BB.

Ok. I guess I was not understanding why you were so concerned with the minutia of something that may or may not have any practical relevence, as "velocity" on its own is simply one small piece of a very large pie.

Actually, more velocity is just more velocity. It doesn't make one superior to the other, it just makes it faster.

__________________
Freedom is never free!!
SWCA #3437

My concern ultimately involved why I was getting so vastly different numbers.

Odd that you would overtly have contempt for someone who was confused by two very different observations put up by ammo/bullet producers. I guess the very fact that they would be so silly as to even post such possibly irrelevant minutia as velocity explains it.

Even more confusing is why you would waste the electrons chiming in on a thread that you are neither concerned with nor value.

If the only parameter you have set is velocity then vis-a-vis velocity, it very well does make one superior.

superior = "greater in quantity or amount"

For the record, I wasn't trying to belittle you in any way, and was only trying to help. Carry on.

Sorry, carbo. That is sincere.

I think I stupidly misunderstand on the internet. The more I tell myself to act as a Christian in all manners, the less I do. The last months of worrying about my son's ALL has made me defensive about everything. For Goodness sake here I am on the internet vehemently defending, as if it really matters, a silly curiosity.

I retract the original question; I'm probably too argumentative to hear answers.

God bless

Hey no worries. My apologies to you as well, the way I write sometimes can be kind of dry.

As far as asking questions to gain more info on a subject, the only dumb question is the one not asked. This is a great forum with a lot of nice people who are always willing to help.

Have a great day!