My Sig P226 would accept .357 Sig by changing the barrel. To me, .40 S&W seems perfect. Would the felt recoil be more with .357 Sig?

__________________
Buy American
Vote Responsibly

I have shot almost no .40, except a friend's former duty weapon (USP), which was surprisingly soft shooting. The 40 has a reputation for a particularly sharp recoil impulse, and IMHO, the .357Sig's recoil is really sharp, and it is a gawdawful loud, but the total recoil impulse is not near what one might expect.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

I converted a Glock 22 to 357 sig with a barsto barrel. Can't remember if one recoiled more than the other, but in my hands the 357 was much more accurate, so I never looked back. 357 is mild when shooting along with one of the 10mms which don't kick bad at all.

Guess I didn't help much. But I think you should give the 357 a try. You might be suprised.

__________________
9tenz

I switch the barrel of a Glock 23 to the 357 Sig sometimes. It seems to have a little more recoil than the 180 grain 40's but about the same as the 155 and 165 grain 40's. I like the 357 Sig a lot.

I shoot both 40 and 357 out of my Sig 229. The 357 recoil is deceptive. Once I separated the flash and the noise from the actual recoil, I found the 357 to be much more tame than the 40.

got one of the first 357 sigs years ago.recoil isn't bad,but the noise is something else.

Neither of them are particularly abusive in the recoil department but the .357 SIG has less felt recoil due to the lighter bullet. of the two I prefer the 357 SIG but I am a firm believer that anyone who has either a 357 SIG or 40 S&W should also have a barrel in the other caliber. That way you can have two guns in one

I believe the Sig has a little sharper recoil than the 40. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm thinking the 357 Sig is a higher pressure round. I have shot both and if it wasn't for the price of .357 Sig ammo I might own one. It is an impressive round, the ballistics are awesome.

When we selected duty weapons eight years ago, we tested everything we could get our hands on in both 357 Sig and 40 S&W, I brought in 23 instructors who spent 3 days on the range doing the evaluation. The results were rather astounding. The weapon of choice was the Sig 229 and not one instructor wanted the 40 S&W. Now, there is nothing wrong with the 40, so I dont want long rants here about what we found. It is just that side by side shooting a lot of ammo and being able to use a bunch of different systems, the 357 Sig was universally liked. Yep, it is louder (sharper on the ears), has more muzzle flash and blast than the 40, but it does recoil less. As was stated earlier, once you separate the noise from the recoil, the recoil feels more like a 9mm. What the instructors liked was amazing penetration and much faster velocities. When you pulled the trigger, the round was there much quicker than the 40. It was very pronounced at ranges exceeding 50 yards.

I guess this is a bit long-winded, but I'd suggest you try, I think you'll like it.

Since it's been mentioned more than once I thought I would add this interaction I had with a clerk at a local gun shop, who is also a local LEO, when getting one of our .357 SIG's.

He asked, why would you want one of those? Before I could answer he added, "They are obnoxious!"

I asked, how so?

He said he was at a local indoor range not too long before and the guy in the next lane was shooting one, in this case a Glock 33 ("Pocket Rocket"), which is what I was buying at the time, and it was so loud that even with his (clerk) "ears" on he had to move down a few lanes to get away from the noise.

While I didn't say this, I thought, how odd, noise at a gun range?

__________________
Ogy

It is a good conversation.
I have the 239 with both barrels.
The sensation I get is that the .357sig is snappier and the .40 is a slower but heavier recoil--more rolling, if that is understood.
I know agencies -- and -- a lot of gamers like the forty. The gamers because it is easy to make major and is a good re-load platform. The Boys seem to like the 40 for capacity.
I prefer shooting the .357sig---and that is what I am about.
Blessings

__________________
TEXAS, by GOD

I cannot argue with that.

Like many of the others here I have shot both. I agree that the .357 seems a little "snappier", but I did not percieve increased recoil. I usually shoot 165 grain .40 loads. I have found the .357 to be accurate and flat shooting.

__________________
Even older, even crankier....

I just thought to add that my 357 sig BarSto barrel has a fully supported chamber, not so much in the 40. You can get away with full support because of the bottleneck design of the cartridge. It shoves the .354" nose into a 10mm hole. The sig round is a 9mm bullet.

__________________
9tenz

From:

.357 SIG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


With a simplistic approach to physics, recoil being directly proportional to "muzzle velocity x bullet mass" (due to conservation of momentum), the recoil of the .357 SIG is equal to or slightly less than that of the .40 S&W, and less than that of the full-power 10 mm Auto loads or the original .357 Magnum,[15] Handgun Recoil table as well as Federal and.[16] This simple approach to recoil is only part of the story as it is not only the properties of the bullet that produce recoil, a more important effect is the rocket like blast of propellant gases coming out of the barrel, after the bullet leaves the muzzle, that plays a greater role in the felt recoil.[17] A more accurate view on recoil is that it is proportional to the mass of all ejecta x velocity of ejecta.[18] Even so, recoil calculated in this manner is only the starting point in a comparison with the .357 Magnum cartridge, since the latter is used in a revolver, in which all the recoil energy is due to the Bullet and propellant, while the .357 SIG cartridge is frequently used in a semi-automatic pistol of recoil operation, in which a significant portion of the recoil energy is diverted to cycle the action, effectively prolonging the recoil phase.
In comparing the energy levels of premium self defense ammunition the muzzle energy of 584 ft.lbs (792 J) of the 125 grains (8.1 g) 1,450 feet per second (440 m/s) .357 SIG load is higher than either the 475 ft·lbf (644 J) generated by a 155 grains (10.0 g) 1,175 feet per second (358 m/s) Speer GoldDot .40 S&W load or the 400 ft·lbf (540 J) generated by a 180 grains (12 g)

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

Great posts.
Given that I have a supply .40 I am not going to spring for the .357 Sig barrel, but it is nice to know that it is an option.

__________________
Buy American
Vote Responsibly

I have several 40 SW and I came to that decision a while back.

Just another caliber to reload, buy dies, save brass etc. Just a necked down 40 shooting a smaller 9mm bullet. What do I need that for. I can shoot lighter 165 (or lighter) bullets from the 40 SW and it will do it's job.

Kinda like the 45 GAP. Why?

__________________
Still Running Against the Wind

I have an M&P40 compact with a Storm Lake 357Sig barrel.

The recoil with the 357 is very snappy but it's over and done with much quicker than the 40.

For me, it's more accurate.

Would I do it again? No. I got a good deal on the barrel here so I decided to try it. Coolness factor is high. But practicality is'nt.

If the 357 SIG is so good, why hasn't anyone made a "magnum" version of it from the 10mm? OAL shouldn't be a factor........or should it? Any gun that can handle the length of the 10mm/45ACP would work with a longer 357 SIG. (357 SOG? )

Sorry slightly off-topic there. I guess a lot of the popularity of the 40S&W is because of its bigger, heavier bullet. Those that like the smaller bullet at higher velocity appreciate the 357 SIG, those that wanted a 45ACP will often settle for the 40S&W and a few more bullets in the mag.

Personally, I think a hot-loaded 40S&W with a Nosler 135-JHP screaming out at about 1300 fps would be a pretty good fightstopper, with heavier bullets available when penetration counts for more.

It's good to have choices.

It would end up like the 400 Corbon. Nowhere!

My p229 has both barrles, for plinking, i like the 40 s&w. for S/D i'm all about the sig. When my friend Frank and i shoot pistols, he says my 357 Sig...."speaks with great authority".

__________________
UNDER THE CONE OF SILENCE

Papajohn428; There is a "magnum" version of the 357 Sig, as you described. It's Dillon Precision's 9x25 Dillon. It's based on the 10mm round. They have dies and conversion barrels for the Glock 20. Although I think that the 357 is so good it doesn't need to be "magnumized", there is a magnum version out there.

As far as recoil, I think it depends on the platform the 40 and 357 are fired from. I've done a couple of 40/357 conversions over the last few years. Hey why not have a gun that fires two calibers instead of only one.... Anyways, The Glock 35 feels the same in 40 or 357. The Springfield XDm feels like it has less recoil in 357 than in 40. I have fired 357 and 40 M&Ps side by side. The M&P 357 feels snappier than the 40, with a little more muzzle flip. Each of my 357 conversions were more accurate than the original 40s were. If you've got a 40 and a little extra money I'd suggest getting a 357 conversion barrel.

__________________
Tom
"Panem et Circenses"

And Double Tap has loaded ammo for it.

You can make the 9x25 from 10mm brass, but you can't make a 357 sig from the 40 or a cut back 10mm.

Although I'm disappointed that Bushmaster1313 decided against the 357 sig barrel, I kinda see where he's coming from. The Dillon round looks impressive but I see no need to convert any of my 10s.

__________________
9tenz

Although I haven't shot a .357 SIG. I have to agree with thomasinaz. I have shot many pistols in .40 S&W. Some are great and some of them are terrible. My truck gun at the moment is a S&W 99 (Walther) and it is good. My Sig 226 in .40 is good. A 40 cal Baby Desert Eagle is awful along with any, other than full size, Glocks. JMHO
Larry