.357 Sig

I have a M&P40 and an M&P357c, both with conversion barrels.
I keep the compact a 40 for wifes bedside/house gun.
The large is 357 as a "Critter gun" for coyotes (and now
alligators) that decide to get close.

I've found that there are a lot of 9mm bullets that are just not
suitable for 357SIG. Round noses don't work, has to be a
muscular looking flat nose or hollow point.
I've had little luck with lead, even hard cast. I've had better luck
with some plated, but jacketed always works.
I don't use 90gr or 147gr in the 357, but that's just my personal
bias.

My good buddy (RIP, also former Dallas PD) that I did security
with was convinced the 357 and 40 were boutique fads that
would soon burn out. I think they are effective, if not as
popular as mainstream calibers. I don't see either dying out.

In answer to a previous question, I’ve got a Storm Lake conversion barrel for my early M&P 40C, and it’s been flawless. Not 10’s of thousands of round though, somewhere between 1-2 thousand.
Interestingly (to me anyway) I’ve got a 9mm barrel for it too. It was was unreliable enough to get me to send it back to Storm Lake, and they did admit to tweaking it without telling me what they did (I couldn’t tell.). It’s still not completely reliable, but not bad.
This little M&P had one of the first Apex kits installed by Randy Lee himself (when it wouldn’t work for me!), and has never hiccupped on 357, or possibly 10,000 rounds of 40. Great little gun!

it kinda hurt when Sig Sauer stopped supporting the 357SIG... like abandoning a puppy on the side of they road out in the countryside... just plain mean.. still hoping the nice farmer comes buy to rescue the pup before nefarious things happen.. ok, a bit of hyperbole.. I think the 357SIG survives as the goofy friend of 40s&w.

Tex1001 said:

I've found that there are a lot of 9mm bullets that are just not
suitable for 357SIG. Round noses don't work, has to be a
muscular looking flat nose or hollow point.
I've had little luck with lead, even hard cast. I've had better luck
with some plated, but jacketed always works.
I don't use 90gr or 147gr in the 357, but that's just my personal
bias.

Click to expand...

The Lee truncated cone mold powder coated works perfect in the p229. With clip on wheel weights and coated it is 126 grains. No noticeable leading either. I have limited to about 1300fps.

SIG should have marketed the cartridge more aggressively, shown off the results of actual in-house ballistics gel tests, and maybe offered police departments some incentives to adopt the cartridge, then it most likely would have been popular enough to keep producing guns chambered in it, but alas, they didn't.

Fortunately, plenty of companies still offer aftermarket .357 SIG conversion barrels, which evidently remains a popular among owners of .40cal pistols, so there's that.

Maybe someday .357 SIG will get a second chance once someone with enough influence who's really into the cartridge begins promoting it on YouTube or something. It's not like it would be hard to build up hype for someone of influence to start singing it's praises like; "It's got the power of .357 Magnum in a semiautomatic pistol!" or "It's like 9mm on steroids!" and "Any .40cal pistol can be converted to .357 SIG with just a barrel swap!" to a new generation of shooters.

Honestly, 10mm Auto and Metal Frames have made a comeback, so why not?

I'm nowhere near being a ballistics expert nor do I have any real-world experience of using a firearm to dispense aggressive miscreants - and I have the utmost respect for those that are or do - but when it comes down to it is there really that much difference in what various calibers of a handgun can do? Obviously on paper the performance of a .357 SIG outclasses 9mm, .38, .45 and can equal that of a standard .357 Magnum, but handguns are still at the lowest rung of the firearm ladder, well below shotguns and rifles.

Playing the Devil's advocate here, I checked out Lucky Gunner testing media performance of .357 SIG vs. Winchester 9mm 147 grain Ranger T, my current carry choice. I do realize that while the testing media used is really only effective for comparison purposes, it's probably about as close to human viscera as we can get with a synthetic substance, sans the bones and tissue differences encountered in a real body. On paper the ballistic performance of the .357 SIG eclipses what is seen with the 9mm Ranger, however, the Ranger round performs better in both penetration and expansion. I'm pretty sure that additional tests with various media may have different results, but this is what I referenced.

So, looping back to my original premise, is there really that big a difference in what a handgun round can do if properly applied by the user? I recognize the ballistic superiority of the .357 SIG over just about anything else, but in the long run does it really matter? Is not the shot placement variable, no matter what the pistol caliber, a more critical consideration?

There are a couple of things to consider here...

1.) Clear Ballistics Gel =/= Organic Ballistics Gel
Yes, it works as a consistent testing media, but unlike the organic gel, it does not simulate organic tissue at all. It has much higher elasticity, thus making it more likely to shrink back and less likely to tear when energy is dumped into it. In an organic gel block, .357 SIG has an impressive permanent wound cavity with is larger in diameter than the bullet itself, ergo the assertion that remote wounding effects cannot occur with pistol cartridges like .357 SIG would seem to be inaccurate. Sure, it's not like rifle rounds with huge tears in the gel extending far beyond the diameter of the bullet, but the visible amount of stress taken by the gel as that energy was dumped into it remains, and it's substantial enough to safely say that it would hurt a lot more at the very least.

2.) Ballistics Gel Testing is obsolete.
The Military has long since adopted full simulated torsos with simulated bones and organs. These torsos are available for purchase and have appeared in a number of ammo tests on YouTube. The results are quite telling... While tissue alone may behave quite similarly regardless of what small arms pistol cartridges are fired into it, bones tell a much different story, and suddenly the asserted marginal difference between pistol cartridges becomes laughable. Don't get me wrong, any duty cartridge is still effective, still capable of incapacitating an attacker, but the sheer difference in damage to bone clearly sets them apart in terms of the potential for incapacitation via loss of mobility. It's like this, a 9mm will generally either punch a hole through a bone or fracture it, but a .40 or .45 will typically shatter bone on impact as it passes through, thus resulting in a far more physically devastating and incapacitating injury.
Unfortunately, I've yet to see .357 SIG tested on a Ballistics Torso, but it's most likely that the greater velocity will also result in bones shattering rather than simply breaking, and therefore being more effective.

Paul Harrel's meat target tests convinced me several times to pick certain SD loads in different calibers over the years. I don't know if he ever tried the 357SIG, but I would trust his results in those targets. Occasionally various 357SIG's show up in the used areas of LGS, and I've been tempted by the prices. First box of factory ammo is too much these days, though.

Forte Smitten Wesson, appreciate the above insight. Guess I'm still struggling with the notion of whether the 'best' handgun round is realistically that much more effective than the 'worst' handgun round if both are applied properly. The incapacitation stats I've seen for calibers ranging from .22 to .45 are not hugely different, and 9mm hardball and .38 Special RNL have probably sent more to meet their maker than anything else. How much is enough? All that being said, in the extreme unlikelihood that I'll ever need to test any of this in a real-world scenario, I won't feel under-armed with one of my 9's or .45's.

Personally, I don't subscribe to the belief that their exists some illusive ideal, universal one-size-fits-all, platform for self-defense. I think it's best for folks to find what works best for them on an individual level, what they shoot best, what fits their hand best, what is best suited for their unique situation, etc.

Full disclosure: as much as I like .357 SIG, it's not my primary carry cartridge of choice, nor do I have any intention to adopt it as such. I carry .40 S&W, which I have found suits me best. I live in an area where humans aren't the only threat, ergo I feel safer carrying a cartridge with a bit more oomph than 9mm.

I think that each cartridge has its own inherent strengths and weaknesses, whichever is "best" is entirely subjective based on the individual who uses it, where they live, and what they might need it to do.

For example, obviously it's better for folks who live in Alaska to carry something more powerful like 10mm Auto or even a Magnum cartridge because they might just as well encounter a Polar Bear as a hostile human.

I also think that the psychological aspect of feeling confident in what you carry is of paramount importance, as obviously you're more likely to remain calm and collected if you believe that you're prepared, so even if it's a placebo effect, someone is much better off carrying what they feel confident with than something that causes them doubt, regardless of whether they doubt the performance of the cartridge or their own ability to use it effectively. So I encourage everyone to carry what works best for them.

As for what's "enough" for self-defense, folks have successfully defended themselves with .22 Pistols. Are their better options for self-defense? Absolutely, but even .22LR out of a Pistol is potentially lethal, so I would say that it's enough. Obviously, you're better off carrying something centerfire because it's inherently more reliable than rimfire ammunition, and more powerful cartridges are more likely to stop a threat regardless of variables like what angle to have to shoot them from to ensure adequate penetration, but if .22LR is all you have or the best you can carry due to some handicap, then I say carry it. Otherwise, I would feel more confident with .380 ACP.

rosewood said:

The Lee truncated cone mold powder coated works perfect in the p229. With clip on wheel weights and coated it is 126 grains. No noticeable leading either. I have limited to about 1300fps.

Click to expand...

I didn't mention powder coated lead bullets because I haven't
tried them yet.
They do interest me and I do cast bullets.

dmn57 said:

Forte Smitten Wesson, appreciate the above insight. Guess I'm still struggling with the notion of whether the 'best' handgun round is realistically that much more effective than the 'worst' handgun round if both are applied properly. The incapacitation stats I've seen for calibers ranging from .22 to .45 are not hugely different, and 9mm hardball and .38 Special RNL have probably sent more to meet their maker than anything else. How much is enough? All that being said, in the extreme unlikelihood that I'll ever need to test any of this in a real-world scenario, I won't feel under-armed with one of my 9's or .45's.

Click to expand...

I forget the details but barrier penetration is one area where .357 SIG significantly outperforms 9mm Luger. IOW going through glass, car doors, etc. That could be important - as a plus or as a minus - in different situations.

Years ago a study of police shootings showed that the .357 Magnum produced the highest percentage of “1-shot stops” compared to other handgun cartridges used by police at the time. .357 SIG comes close in a semiauto pistol. 9x23 Winchester duplicates .357 Magnum ballistics and has greater magazine capacity than .40 S&W or 10mm.

The 357 SIG also typically shoots flatter than 9mm, 40 S&W and 45acp...

Cheers!

Tex1001 said:

I didn't mention powder coated lead bullets because I haven't
tried them yet.
They do interest me and I do cast bullets.

Click to expand...

Once you start PC'ing, u you won't go back to lube.

The .357 Sig is just about the most "bulletproof" round as far as having zero feed issues. There was a time when the local PD's left scads of Sig and .40 brass all over the range for us to glean but now it's necessary to
hunt the Starline site which happens to be available now.

A custom commander in .357 Sig is one of three in my carry rotatoin along with two other commanders in .40 and .38 super.

OP, next up? Try a 9x25!

tlawler said:

I just picked up a whole bunch of these 124 gr. Montana Gold .355 JHP’s really cheap…less than $.09 each…I’m going to try them out in .357 Sig and see how they work. I’ve had good results with a 124 gr. lead .355 TC bullet that I powder coat and these have a very similar profile.

Click to expand...

Well, it’s been a few months, and I’m back around to .357 Sig in the reloading rotation. I loaded up a couple hundred of these over 9 grains of Longshot to an OAL of 1.13” and took them to the range yesterday to try out in my Sig P239. Not one hiccup with 63 rounds. My Garmin chrony showed min/max of 1289 and 1443 & avg vel of 1370. Next batch, I’m going to go with 9.2 grains Longshot which is the max load in the Lee manual.

I found something interesting and figured that I'd bump the thread because it sort of answers a question that I myself brought up earlier in regards to what was the actual problem with M&P357 pistols being dumped by law enforcement due to unreliability...

North Carolina Highway Patrol Ditches 2k S&W M&P .357 SIGs - The Truth About Guns

According to this article — which is admittedly from a source which I particularly don't have much respect for due to the inflammatory/sensationalist nature of their articles, but I digress — the issues that the North Carolina Highway Patrol had with the M&P357 was failures to eject, but only with certain pistols.

This somewhat confirms my aforementioned suspicion that the issue wasn't serious, could have been the result of limp wristing, and that S&W most likely discontinued the line not because their existed some irreparable flaw or weakness in the design, but rather simply didn't care to continue producing/servicing pistols in a less popular chambering that were being sent to them in perfect working order, citing failures to eject which weren't in fact the fault of the pistol itself.

Personally, this is sufficient evidence to settle any doubts I had left that converting M&P40s to .357 SIG was perfectly safe and reliable.

In 2008 I was in a Pat Rogers carbine class in NC. There were a couple their troopers in the class. I do not recall any malfunctions and they were very positive about the platform.

The NMSP went to 357 SIG after the 45 ACP and were well satisfied except for ammo cost. After a few years, the bean counters won and they've turned to the 9mm with mixed terminal results. Just like in 1990-1992 when they tried 9 before and quickly swapped out new 5906s for new 4506s.

SuperMan said:

Probably the best Law Enforcement round ever marketed...

Sadly overlooked round...

Bob

Click to expand...

Bob, when I started as a cop it was a "revolver" world. Eventually the 9mm and 45 ACP was approved for off duty carry. Then 9mm and later the 45 ACP was approved for on duty carry.

The 40 S&W was invented in 1990 and 357 Sig in 1994. (45 GAP is really late in 2003) So for me who was advocating for the 45 ACP for 20 years and finally getting it. The 40 and Sig was too late for the party. For cops either the 357 Magnum or the 45 ACP is the perfect choice depending if you are urban or rural. JMHO, Sarge