M&P357Sig; FDE; 2.0 and general puzzlement

[Harkrader]

M&P357, FDE, 2.0, and general puzzlement.

I’ve been a Sig “Death Before Dishonor” fan since the early ‘80s. One of our sons is a LEO and his department switched from the “well-know” plastic gun for, uhm, a well-known plastic gun. To wit, the M&P9.

I had trained him from birth to be a Sig man, so I was gruelingly distressed when he accepted THAT plastic gun, and then went on to accept THAT NEXT plastic gun.

Since he can arrest me, I grudgingly agreed to accompany him to the range and deign to touch this Smiffthingy.

I gotta be careful, here, I might be recognized, flushed-out, actually, by my many associates who remember my “DEATH BEFORE ANYTHING BUT SIG” vows.

‘Cuz I loved the M&P. ‘Cept for one thing. After fondling my way through Sig P220s, P226s and P228s (.45ACP and 9mm), my employer tossed a P229/357Sig into my hands, one of the first in the U.S. Until recently, I never owned any semi-auto in any other caliber. (For retirement, I was given a P226 Blackwater 9mm. I lowered my standards and bravely took possession of it.)

So the M&P HAD to be in 357Sig. Mine did, anyway. So I got one. My Sigs feel deceitfully snubbed. Last year, when I was handed a Sig P320C/357Sig to carry for comparison to the M&P, I of course said the Sig was the better. That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.

Even if it is likely you’ll find the M&P in my holster more often than the excellent Sig, be sure to note I said “Excellent”.

Sooo, my M&P was beginning to show the wear and tear of my loving ministrations (and thousands of rounds), and I got to thinking I’d like one o’ them colorfullier ones. You know, Fudge-Dunn Eart’. Actually, it’s more like milk chocolate.

Natchurly, had to be 357Sig. I was quick to admit that the M&P2.0 model was really hot when all tarted up like that. Lotsa meaning-filled-looking windows all over some of them. Cool! Porting, too.

Started looking into them. CORE? PC? Pro? “C”? Sub-C? I tried looking at barrel length for comparisons. My M&P357Sigs (three of them, now), have 4.2” barrels. Scrolling through pages and pages of S&W website blather, I found 3.6”, 4.0”, thumb safety, no thumb safety, and then a 5” Spec. Same barrel length as my M&P9 Pro. Opps. You weren’t supposed to know about that one. Just ignore that. Slip of the keyboard.

NO, as in “NO” 357Sig anythings, and NO, as in “NO” 4.2” barrels. What gives?

I’ve dutifully combed through forum posts and find only others who lament the absence, but nobody offering any ‘splanation of “Why?”. And factory-acceptable alternatives.

Many obviously knowledgeable contributors linked to aftermarket manufacturers such as Storm Lake. Talk about “Tarted UP”! Fact is, I have excellent experience with Storm Lake barrels in other guns, so - - -.

But, WAITAMINT! WHY would I have to DO that? Couldn’t Sig offer a 4.2” 357Sig barrel in SOMEthing 2.0?

As the rope said to the bar tender, “I’m a frayed knot.”

Sooo, can ANYbody offer a detailed but still succinct explanation of Jus’ Whu’ss UP?

What happened to 357Sig? What happened to 4.2” barrels? Will Aaron Rogers stay with the Green Bay Packers? After getting together with HOT Danica Patrick? Now that they’re back from Peru?

Would appreciate anything anyone can offer to make sense of all this. Except Rogers and Patrick. That’s obvious

 

[seldon14]

357 sig is nearly a dead caliber. It offers no real performance advantage for personal protection vs 9mm, it cost more, has more recoil, and lower capacity.

 

[Capt. Bob]

357 sig is nearly a dead caliber. It offers no real performance advantage for personal protection vs 9mm, it cost more, has more recoil, and lower capacity.

How is that when you have almost 20% higher velocity with the same projectiles?

 

[M29since14]

I guess S&W is too busy pumping out 9mm plastic guns to be bothered with those of us who would like to have an M&P 2.0 in .357 SIG and, notably in my case, 10mm. Doesn’t look like either of those “problems” would be all that complicated or disruptive of their mass production, but maybe it is more involved than I think. I sort of doubt it.

I’m not in the market for more plastic but if either caliber would show up in the M&P 2.0 line, that would change - quickly. And I am not one of those people who believes the 9, other things being equal, is “just as effective” as the .357 SIG, though it is somewhat cheaper to shoot.

 

[rosewood]

I heard rumors S&W was having problems with the .357 sig in the M&P platform with some LE agency that had purchased them. I do not know what the problem was or the details. Maybe they decided it wasn't worth the hassle to fix and or deal with repairs??

Also, since the pendulum has swung back to the 9mm, maybe the sales were not there to support the production?

However, there are a lot of folks that have installed aftermarket barrels in the M&P in .357 sig and seem quite happy with them.

Could you buy a .40 in 2.0 and drop your existing barrel in it? Not sure if it fits or not or how barrel length would impact the fit.

Rosewood

 

[rosewood]

I guess S&W is too busy pumping out 9mm plastic guns to be bothered with those of us who would like to have an M&P 2.0 in .357 SIG and, notably in my case, 10mm. Doesn’t look like either of those “problems” would be all that complicated or disruptive of their mass production, but maybe it is more involved than I think. I sort of doubt it.

I’m not in the market for more plastic but if either caliber would show up in the M&P 2.0 line, that would change - quickly. And I am not one of those people who believes the 9, other things being equal, is “just as effective” as the .357 SIG, though it is somewhat cheaper to shoot.

If S&W were to build the M&P 45 into a 10mm, I would have a hard time not buying one I imagine.

Rosewood

 

[Old_Cop]

Like Sig pistols and I like S&Ws. I think that a 2.0 in .357 Sig is unlikely unless some large agency demands one. S&W is driven by sales.

 

[Farmer17]

I like the .357 Sig ballistics but ammo cost is about double the 9m/m and the .40 is only a few bucks more than 9m/m so that I feel that is the main reason the round is not more popular. I had heard that some highway patrol departments really liked the .357 Sig because of it penetration on trucks so I can see it being pretty valuable in that situation.

 

[Harkrader]

"357 sig is nearly a dead caliber. It offers no real performance advantage for personal protection vs 9mm, it cost more, has more recoil, and lower capacity. "

I STILL want one! I have spoken with LEO's who were issued guns chambered in 357Sig and none had anything bad to say about it. If they did, it was with difficulties that people with smaller hands have at holding the gun. I heard that about Glocks in the '80s.
I have two LEO turn-in M&P357Sig pistols and both are excellent guns.

My employer's demo, waaay back when, of the performance difference between 9mm and 357Sig in the P228 and P229 was "The Decider."

9mm performance has taken big leaps, since, but "bang for the buck" at distance still goes to the 357Sig. THAT ammo hasn't been sitting still, either. The 124/125-grain bullets are faster than ever with better performing bullet designs, and the comparatively new 147-grain is a very hard hitter.

Double Tap 357SIG FMJ FP 147-gr bullets whizz out the barrel at 1,255fps, and deliver 514-ft-lbs of energy. It WILL cost you about $2 per round.

Double Tap 9mm+P FMJ FP 147-gr bullets fly at 1,135fps, delivering 421-ft-lbs. Not bad by any means, but still not 357Sig. It will cost you a buck a round, IF you can find it.

Buffalo Bore 9mm JHP 147-gr bullets fly at 1,175fps delivering 451-ft-lbs, but it is +P+. It also costs $1.20 per round.

Other than Buffalo Bore or Double Tap, premium 357Sig ammo cost is close to 9mm+P premium ammo.

I am not denigrating the 9mm. All the 9mm guns I trained on and carried used European ammo that put U.S. ammo to shame, and was at least +P, and probably a bit more. Despite my putting the Sig P226 on a well-deserved pedestal, the Beretta 92 really showcased the round with superb ease of handling.

I have a self-resetting head-sized target I set at ~10, ~15 and ~20 meters. The 357Sig rocks it over to hit its backstop. The 9mm, even a +p, does not. If I want to detonate a quart-size milk bottle full of water, there's no comparison. Hollow point 9mm penetrates and cracks, 357Sig shatters and sprays.

 

[seldon14]

How is that when you have almost 20% higher velocity with the same projectiles?

Because terminal ballistics are much more complicated than that.

I’m not in the market for more plastic but if either caliber would show up in the M&P 2.0 line, that would change - quickly. And I am not one of those people who believes the 9, other things being equal, is “just as effective” as the .357 SIG, though it is somewhat cheaper to shoot.

Pretty much all scientific/structured testing indicates that it is.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.luckygunner.com/lounge/357-sig-whats-the-point/amp/

I like the .357 Sig ballistics but ammo cost is about double the 9m/m and the .40 is only a few bucks more than 9m/m so that I feel that is the main reason the round is not more popular. I had heard that some highway patrol departments really liked the .357 Sig because of it penetration on trucks so I can see it being pretty valuable in that situation.

FBI testing has found it didn't have a noticeable increase in barrier penetration performance over 9mm.

 

[seldon14]

"357 sig is nearly a dead caliber. It offers no real performance advantage for personal protection vs 9mm, it cost more, has more recoil, and lower capacity. "

I STILL want one! I have spoken with LEO's who were issued guns chambered in 357Sig and none had anything bad to say about it. If they did, it was with difficulties that people with smaller hands have at holding the gun. I heard that about Glocks in the '80s.
I have two LEO turn-in M&P357Sig pistols and both are excellent guns.

My employer's demo, waaay back when, of the performance difference between 9mm and 357Sig in the P228 and P229 was "The Decider."

9mm performance has taken big leaps, since, but "bang for the buck" at distance still goes to the 357Sig. THAT ammo hasn't been sitting still, either. The 124/125-grain bullets are faster than ever with better performing bullet designs, and the comparatively new 147-grain is a very hard hitter.

Double Tap 357SIG FMJ FP 147-gr bullets whizz out the barrel at 1,255fps, and deliver 514-ft-lbs of energy. It WILL cost you about $2 per round.

Double Tap 9mm+P FMJ FP 147-gr bullets fly at 1,135fps, delivering 421-ft-lbs. Not bad by any means, but still not 357Sig. It will cost you a buck a round, IF you can find it.

Buffalo Bore 9mm JHP 147-gr bullets fly at 1,175fps delivering 451-ft-lbs, but it is +P+. It also costs $1.20 per round.

Other than Buffalo Bore or Double Tap, premium 357Sig ammo cost is close to 9mm+P premium ammo.

I am not denigrating the 9mm. All the 9mm guns I trained on and carried used European ammo that put U.S. ammo to shame, and was at least +P, and probably a bit more. Despite my putting the Sig P226 on a well-deserved pedestal, the Beretta 92 really showcased the round with superb ease of handling.

I have a self-resetting head-sized target I set at ~10, ~15 and ~20 meters. The 357Sig rocks it over to hit its backstop. The 9mm, even a +p, does not. If I want to detonate a quart-size milk bottle full of water, there's no comparison. Hollow point 9mm penetrates and cracks, 357Sig shatters and sprays.

If you like the round that's fine, 357 Sig is a perfectly effective round, just like 40. I was just pointing out WHY they arnt making it. It has very small pool of interest. Flatter shooting at range is an advantage of 357 sig, but I personally wouldn't want to trade any follow up shot speed, for an improvement outside the parameters I'd use the firearm for.

10mm seems to have a bigger following (and has a place as a semi auto outdoor cartridge imo) but still has difficulty managing enough interest to justify manufacturing a pistol in that caliber.

 

[colt_saa]

FBI testing has found it didn't have a noticeable increase in barrier penetration performance over 9mm.

They may both get through the barrier the same, but the one with more velocity and more energy has a better chance at hitting it's target with the force required to take them out of the firefight.

Have you ever needed to shoot through a windshield to stop an assailant from shooting at you?

I have.

Of all the officers involved in shootings that I have interviewed over the decades, not one of them said they would have rather had a less powerful cartridge in their sidearm

 

[colt_saa]

I also am a big SIG fan. It goes back to the first P220 I ever shot, that was 1977.

I was exposed to the 357SIG cartridge in the early 1990s when I was working Dallas County. I thought that the Texas DPS had great vision when they chose the P229 and P239 in 357SIG as official side arms

I have often been mandated to carry something other than want I really like. but we put up with it

The M&P line of auto loaders is one of the few modern striker fired pistols that I feel comfortable with.

So do not feel bad, you are not the only one

I currently own 5, three 357SIG full size pistols one compact 357SIG and my M&P Special Ops which is a suppressed 9MM

A 6th will be joining the crowd, but it will be chambered for 356TSW

My compact wears the Crimson Trace laser back strap and it is kind of cool. It carries well in an ankle rig for those occasions when I can not wear the fullsize on my hip

The compact reloads with the full size mags with no problem or it can wear one of the X-grip spacers to fill in the gap

I used to use this for demo shoots.

It is capable of placing 30 rounds on target in roughly 2 seconds as long as you do you part. Of course, the main reason for those 2 seconds is BIG smile that gets on your face at practice time. Sorry I had not realized the camera had been moved

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6wMRqxaxiI[/ame]

Like most sub guns, they are usually employed in semi or burst fire mode

While I would welcome a 10 MM Auto version of the M&P, I will not be holding my breath

BTW, just because something is not listed on a factory's website, it does not mean they are not manufacturing it

 

[seldon14]

They may both get through the barrier the same, but the one with more velocity and more energy has a better chance at hitting it's target with the force required to take them out of the firefight.

Have you ever needed to shoot through a windshield to stop an assailant from shooting at you?

I have.

Of all the officers involved in shootings that I have interviewed over the decades, not one of them said they would have rather had a less powerful cartridge in their sidearm

The test was on there performance in gel after penetrating, not just there ability to penetrate, and they exhibited roughly the same penetration and expansion depths, after penetrating metal, auto glass, or wood.

 

[seldon14]

The test was on there performance in gel after penetrating, not just there ability to penetrate, and they exhibited roughly the same penetration and expansion depths, after penetrating metal, auto glass, or wood.

Here is a thread with it being discussed with Dr Roberts.

.357 sig barrier penetration - Tactical Forums

 

[colt_saa]

The test was on there performance in gel after penetrating, not just there ability to penetrate, and they exhibited roughly the same penetration and expansion depths, after penetrating metal, auto glass, or wood.

I am glad that you are happy with your 9MM and I have no desire to convert you to something else

Why is it that you have the need to prove to those that shoot, enjoy or perhaps love the 357SIG cartridge that it is no better than 9MM?

BTW, why don't you post the FBI Publication that discusses these two cartridges?

We do not want to hear the opinions of someone on the Internet that read the test, we want to read the report and form our own opinions

 

[swsig]

Back to the OP's original questions. Based on what I've learned on our Forum, S&W made a large sale of their early M&Ps in .357 SIG to a Highway Patrol agency (North Carolina, I believe). S&W was subsequently forced to buy back the entire lot due to reliability problems. Instead of resolving the problems with the .357 SIG M&P line, S&W decided, "If first you don't succeed, to heck with it!", and stopped making them. Aftermarket manufacturers like Storm Lake began making conversion barrels, but not for all M&P models. One of our members had a gunsmith cut back and re-crown a full size conversion barrel to fit his smaller M&P, so that's an option if a conversion barrel isn't made in your length.

My own experience, which I've related several times previously here, is that my Storm Lake .357 SIG conversion barrel for my EDC 1.0 M&P 40c is wonderful. It is a straightforward drop-in conversion, and it is more accurate at 20 yards than my .40 S&W barrel is. I don't know if the .357 SIG round is inherently superior to other rounds, but I've decided to convert to it because you never know when an extra 100-150 ft/lbs of muzzle energy might come in handy.

 

[sigp220.45]

I really didn’t have much interest in the .357 Sig (though I worked a couple of police shootings where it performed very well), until my family gave me a 320 for my last birthday.

The first time I shot it my reaction was: this ain’t no 9mm.

I’m a fan now. I stick with 125s since thats what it is designed around.

I sent it to Sig for the trigger fix and it came back with a .40 barrel in it. I called and they said keep it, we’ll send a .357 barrel by Fedex. Now I have a dual caliber gun.

I’m not worried about ammo drying up. I can still buy .38 S&W and 7.7 Jap at the store. I’m sure it will be around longer than I am.

 

[Capt. Bob]

Because terminal ballistics are much more complicated than that.

Thanks for explaining that.

 

[Sheepdogged]

Revised- additional insight added

357 sig is nearly a dead caliber. It offers no real performance advantage for personal protection vs 9mm, it cost more, has more recoil, and lower capacity.

That is not true in my opinion. Let's say you lose a loved one in a gunfight but you could go back in time and provide him or her with a 4-5% advantage minimum. Would it be worth it? I say "yes." The Buckeye Firearms Association study is far from perfect, but it does suggest there is at least a modest advantage to .357 SIG (though it might be more than that which I will get to later: An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power | Buckeye Firearms Association).

For example, the data suggests the following after evaluating about 1800 people shot with various calibers (which is far superior to any FBI ballistic gel test):

1) It takes 2 rounds on average to stop someone with .357 SIG/Mag whereas 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP each tend to take 3 rounds on average (again, we're talking averages). This makes up for any loss in capacity.

2) The failure to incapacitate rate beats .44 Mag, it even marginally beats shotguns (or is at least within the margin of error), and is on par with centerfire rifles. This is only a modest advantage but an advantage nonetheless.

3) .357 SIG is about 7% more accurate than 9mm or .40 S&W (note: though not superior to .45 ACP which, coupled with its potential as a vastly superior subsonic suppressor host, still makes .45 ACP a viable round in my opinion).

4) One-shot-stop are 10% better for .357 SIG over 9mm.

5) The percentage actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) is 14% greater for .357 SIG over 9mm.

6) .357 SIG is about 10% more lethal than 9mm.

7) .357 SIG rounds feed more reliably than 9mm and most other calibers because of its bottleneck design (do we have a modern rifle round that lacks a bottleneck design?). The reason for this is that K.E. = 1/2 mass x velocity squared. In other words, increasing velocity builds energy much faster and more efficiently than increasing mass (which produces more recoil). By enlarging the case beyond the diameter of the bullet, ammunition manufacturers can create bullets for short action systems that are more ballistically ideal (like those in short action rifles/carbines and pistols). The extra bonus is that bottlenecked bullets chamber more easily than straight-walled cartridges (for reasons similar to the benefits of beveling a magazine well for inserting mags).

Remember, a .357 SIG bullet IS a 9mm bullet. As such it can do anything a 9mm bullet can do and more because you can drive the bullet faster by including more powder. I find it silly that so many people (and departments) find it advantageous to run +P 9mm ammunition over standard pressure but they don't think there is an advantage to .357 SIG. You can load .357 SIG to the equivalent of standard pressure 9mm, or you can load it to be significantly more powerful than 9mm +p+ ammo.

.357 SIG also does NOT have more recoil. A 124 gr. 9mm and a 124 gr. .357 SIG has the same recoil because they have the same mass. What .357 SIG will have is more muzzle blast because you're loading the same .355" diameter bullet hotter. Like recoil, however, this can be mitigated with extra weight, especially at the front of the pistol (just as weight can mitigate a higher bore axis). It can also be mitigated by porting. Jerry Charles Miculek, Jr., by the way, even to this day ports or Magnaports all of his concealed carry firearms! He can shoot flatter and faster than most people without it, but he nonetheless maintains there is a strategic advantage to it. As he states, he likes to "cheat" as much as possible to send as many rounds at an adversary as possible, and if it was realistically dangerous to port pistols, he would know by now after having done this for decades already shooting hundreds of thousands if not millions of rounds.

In fact, some .357 SIG rounds are both more powerful and have less recoil than your standard self-defence 9mm rounds. My SIG P229 is loaded by my bed with 65 grain Underwood Xtreme Defender rounds that are rated at 2100 fps with 636 ft. lbs. of muzzle energy and it is very tame because the bullets are so light. I remember the first time I shot it I was like, "That's it?" It's no coincidence that the venerable .357 Magnum round revered by law enforcement for decades hovered close the 600 ft. lb. mark that hardly any of the commercially available 357 SIG rounds reach. That might mean that, had it not been the norm that .357 SIG rounds barely break 500 ft. lbs. of muzzle energy (that is to say, if it was the norm that they far exceeded that in MUZZLE energy and DELIVERED 500+ ft. lbs. of energy), the Buckeye firearms Study may have shown .357 SIG to have less than a 9% failure to incapacitate rate (which was already unsurpassed by even shotguns and rifles). How could it beat those results? Again, for the same reason it beats .44 Magnum. Rifles and shotguns, and even .44 Magnum and other powerful revolvers and pistol cartridges (like the .50 Action Express) are so much more powerful than 9mm, .40 S&W, .45 ACP and .357 SIG that you reach a point of diminishing returns. Coupled with the fact that we know law enforcement loved the ballistics of .357 Magnum that the .357 SIG can match or exceed (but seldom does commercially for some strange reason), it is a good bet both the former and the latter are actually the best self-defense rounds we could use for typical self-defense ranges (.357 SIG being even better because we can shoot it from semiautomatic pistols).

Granted, I would say for the average shooter, they can control a comparably-sized and commercially available 9mm round easier than a .357 SIG because of the muzzle blast (again, comparing same-size/weight projectiles), but you can also say that comparing standard pressure versus +p or +P+ 9mm ammunition (and you can also load .357 SIG to be as soft-shooting as any 9mm because, again, it is a 9mm). Personally I felt the Glock 33 I used to own was too snappy for someone like me that doesn't shoot all that much (I don't even go monthly anymore). The G33 is a Glock 26 chambered in .357 SIG. This is why I only have my 33 ounce SIG P229 chambered in .357 SIG which makes shooting that round a pleasure even with a bullet rated with 636 ft. lbs. of energy. A 4.25" or 5" full-size M&P, however, would likely handle the .357 SIG round very well. I'm not sure what the weight is, but I know my M&P9 M2.0 Subcompact is heavier than my Glock 19's. As such, the full-size and longslide M&P's will be even heavier than that (keep in mind when researching weights on Smith & Wesson's website that some of the time they print the weight of an unloaded pistol without the magazine. An unloaded Shield, for example, is 20.3 ounces with a flush magazine and NOT 18.3 ounces as published). That said, I might even still prefer my Subcompact in 9mm, but I would certainly favor a full-size M&P in .357 SIG. In fact, I'd probably prefer my Subcompact in .357 SIG if it was ported like my Shield (which might handle the muzzle blast well enough as well).

With .357 SIG we're not even talking about bullets as heavy as .40 S&W which most people can handle (which I also carried exclusively for 8 years). In my opinion, .357 SIG is easier to shoot than .40 S&W and just as easy as 9mm depending on the ammunition. In other words, some people prefer reduced "recoil" 9mm rounds (e.g. the pink Hornady box) which are lighter/weaker loads. Since .357 SIG is 9mm, you can load it the same way if you so choose.

Now the Buckeye Firearms Association study is limited as I mentioned. One of the limitations is that we have no idea what specific rounds were used in each caliber. Most commercially available .357 SIG rounds are loaded to create barely more than 500 ft. pounds of muzzle energy. This edges out the vast majority of .40 S&W and .45 ACP rounds (and certainly eclipses the 9mm Parabellum), but it is hardly reflective of what the .357 SIG is capable of. The Underwood STANDARD PRESSURE rounds rated at 636 ft. lbs. are more powerful than most commercially available 10mm rounds. Similarly, 10mm rounds can also be loaded much more powerfully in standard pressure cartridges, but because it tends to be a heavier bullet, it runs a greater risk of over penetrating (which is why .44 Mag doesn't stop people better than 9mm in the study).

.357 SIG is a superior round in my opinion, but when you have to issue firearms to both men and women of various sizes and skill levels, commercially available 9mm is a better universal round if you need to have everyone shooting the exact same cartridge, but I would argue .357 SIG would be superior for many if not most civilians who are not saddled with that logistical prerequisite if it was more popular to bring the price down (again, I think the expense is more about politics than materials & economy of scale, but if it was more popular we still might mitigate the prohibitive price. We can also practice with 9mm like LEO's practiced with .38 Special in their .357 Magnum revolvers). Again, .357 SIG is superior in many cases because it can do anything a 9mm can do and more. The only exception in my opinion is in lighter guns not specifically built to mitigate the extra muzzle blast (e.g. lacking porting). So 9mm would never be obsolete in single stacks, micro compacts, subcompacts, and compacts (or even full-size pistols for many), but I could see .357 SIG becoming very popular if people understood ballistics better (and the constraints LEO's and the military are under).

Certainly shot placement is more important than caliber, there's no doubt here, but that isn't where the story ends in my opinion, and it can even be argued beyond the points I've mentioned herein if we start discussing the ever controversial hydrostatic shock theory. I am not going to do that at length because I am trying to stick to what we've seen in a study of 1800 people actually being shot with various calibers (rather than merely considering tests on animals or observations from WWII medical doctors supporting hydrostatic shock theory), but if people want more insight into what hydrostatic shock might do, they can read the West Point study here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0803.3051.pdf (at least get through the section about why it is claimed to be a myth by the FBI if you're unwilling or able to read the whole thing).

People in forums have claimed to have debunked this study, but I have never read any compelling evidence to support this claim, and I know that when the FBI reverted back to 9mm in recent years, it was still quoting the antiquated report written by one of their agents outlining the opinions of a doctor lacking the technology to observe hydrostatic shock in the 1970's & 1980's (as mentioned in this study), so you can draw your own conclusions about what you read in forums (which is why I've included at least two studies in my post not wanting to be guilty of the same [one that also references additional studies]). That said, I know many studies are full of it, so I am always in favor of additional legitimate research.

But like I said, not even considering hydrostatic shock, the Buckeye Firearms Association study demonstrates the potential superiority of the .357 SIG round in my opinion. If one is also to accept the conclusions from Courtney & Courtney in the West Point study, however, it gets even better because the vast majority of commercially available .357 SIG ammunition does not DELIVER 500+ ft. pounds of energy as the study predicts is necessary for depending on the effects of hydrostatic shock (the commercial stuff mostly only meets 500 ft. lbs. of MUZZLE energy). Some Underwood ammunition, however, can reliably deliver well over 500 ft. lbs. of energy as it starts with a muzzle energy that exceeds 600 ft. lbs. as I mentioned earlier. If Courtney & Courtney are right, then .357 SIG might be a caveat regarding shot placement if we can believe what researchers in the US and China found studying the phenomenon after the FBI abandoned the idea of adopting that round before the technology was widely available for testing & observing it. Canines and swine, for example, were incapacitated merely by shots in the rear leg which would be a game changer, but you need to deliver these powerful rounds without dumping the energy because of over penetrating. This may be where .357 SIG can succeed whereas 10mm and .44 magnum fall short as heavier bullets exceeding the .355" diameter of 9mm don't have the ballistic coefficient due to both their extra mass & bulk which prohibits delivering the required energy without over penetration (i.e. as they are less aerodynamic).

Again, we don't even have to mention hydrostatic shock to appreciate .357 SIG, but if we were to conduct more studies into it, we might find that .357 SIG might indisputably be the best self-defense round (bar none). But because of the FBI myth and people hating on Courtney & Courtney (at least the husband), we certainly need more research in this area considering what I have mentioned herein. For all I know the industry is sitting on additional studies proving the effectiveness of .357 SIG and hydrostatic shock because, once 9mm pistol buying has plateaued, it might be a way to legitimately revive gun sales later on. After all, we cannot easily convert most 9mm pistols to .357 SIG like we can convert .40 S&W to .357 SIG or 9mm.

Okay, I promise, I am done editing now. I'm sorry to go so long, but I wanted to get my argument out there with the hopes at least someone will read it in its entirety.