.40s&w vs .357 SIG [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : .40s&w vs .357 SIG


Snooch..!!!
01-22-2012, 16:17
Any benefits/drawbacks to either over the other other than ammo price..?

I love my G23 and wonder if there is any advantage to getting a G32 barrel for it.

And from what I can tell the G32 barrel should drop right in and I could use my .40 cal mags too right..?

Thanks..! :wavey:

barth
01-22-2012, 16:21
Any benefits/drawbacks to either over the other other than ammo price..?

I love my G23 and wonder if there is any advantage to getting a G32 barrel for it.

And from what I can tell the G32 barrel should drop right in and I could use my .40 cal mags too right..?

Thanks..! :wavey:

I have a G27 with a G33 barrel/mags.
Not only is the price different, but also availability of ammo.
And you get a wider range of load choices with 40.

Oh, question 2a and 2b.

2A) G32 barrel should drop right in?
Yes, the G32 barrel will drop in and work.
The 40/357 guns (same size) are identical except for mags and barrels

2B) I could use my .40 cal mags too right..?
Yes your 40 mags will work - with a caveat.
For the Range no problemo . For Self Defense ???
The followers are different with 40 and 357 mags.
(and maybe the mouth of the mag)
You can get 357 mags, put 357 followers in the 40 mags, or just run the 40 mags as is.
The issue is some potential for sporadic FTF.
Real or imagined - It seems like cheap insurance to just get 357 mags for SD.

One Final Point:
I'd love to say I'm super smart and knowledgeable.
But truth is I got a major education on barrels/mags/followers by fellow GT members.
Thanks Everybody! Really

dkf
01-22-2012, 16:29
Yep a G32 barrel barrel and .40 mags with work fine with your G23.

As far as the advantages of one or the other that depends on the individual. For me I prefer the .357sig over the .40 however you may find the opposite.

Snooch..!!!
01-22-2012, 16:34
Are there better penetration values for either or does either round "hit harder" as the .40s&w is said to do over 9mm..?

MarcDW
01-22-2012, 16:41
yeah, this is really a original question!
:popcorn:

GlockPride
01-22-2012, 16:49
I have a 23 and have in the past been slightly interested in the .357sig. Are there any quick ballistics someone can put up?

barth
01-22-2012, 16:53
I have a 23 and have in the past been slightly interested in the .357sig. Are there any quick ballistics someone can put up?

9x19 Win Ranger +P+ |115@1320, 21.7 mv, 444 E|BR 9.6", 0.53", 2.11cu|CL 10.2", 0.65", 3.37cu|avg 2.74, 3.89 re, 0.70
9x19 - caliber
Win Ranger +P+ - the name of the load
115@1320 - bullet mass in grains @ muzzle velocity
21.7 mv - bullet momentum in lb*fps
444 E - muzzle energy in ftlbs
BR - what follows is the data for bare gelatin
9.6" inches of penetration
0.53", final expanded diameter of bullet
2.11 cu, approximation of wound volume. (this does not take into account the expansion profile as a function of depth, but it should be roughly proportionate to actual wound volume)
CL - what follows is the data for clothed gelatin
same fields as the bare gelatin, as defined above
avg 2.74 - Average wound volume, clothed and bare gelatin
3.89 re - Free Recoil Energy, assuming a 1.88 lb pistol
0.70 - Average would volume per unit Free Recoil Energy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
357SIG CCI/Speer GD |125@1372, 24.5 mv, 522 E|BR 16.1", 0.60", 4.54cu|CL 19.1", 0.54", 4.36cu|avg 4.45, 4.96 re, 0.90
40SW Win Ranger Talon|180@1000, 25.7 mv, 399 E|BR 13.6", 0.68", 4.92cu|CL 13.5", 0.68", 4.90cu|avg 4.91, 5.47 re, 0.90
40SW CCI/Speer GD |155@1176, 26.0 mv, 475 E|BR 10.7", 0.84", 5.93cu|CL 18.1", 0.57", 4.62cu|avg 5.27, 5.61 re, 0.94
40SW CCI/Speer GD |155@1186, 26.3 mv, 483 E|BR 10.7", 0.84", 5.93cu|CL 17.7", 0.58", 4.68cu|avg 5.30, 5.70 re, 0.93
40SW Hornady XTP |155@1194, 26.4 mv, 490 E|BR 14.5", 0.65", 4.81cu|CL 18.1", 0.55", 4.30cu|avg 4.56, 5.78 re, 0.79
40SW Win Silvertip |155@1199, 26.5 mv, 494 E|BR 12.2", 0.69", 4.54cu|CL 13.2", 0.71", 5.21cu|avg 4.87, 5.83 re, 0.84
40SW Fed Hi-Shok |155@1167, 25.8 mv, 468 E|BR 13.8", 0.61", 4.02cu|CL 19.5", 0.51", 3.98cu|avg 4.00, 5.52 re, 0.72
40SW CCI/Speer GD |165@1076, 25.4 mv, 424 E|BR 13.1", 0.65", 4.33cu|CL 15.8", 0.60", 4.47cu|avg 4.40, 5.32 re, 0.83
40SW Fed HydraShok |165@1007, 23.7 mv, 371 E|BR 13.8", 0.62", 4.18cu|CL 15.2", 0.64", 4.87cu|avg 4.53, 4.66 re, 0.97
40SW Rem |165@1031, 24.3 mv, 389 E|BR 12.5", 0.67", 4.41cu|CL 16.3", 0.61", 4.76cu|avg 4.59, 4.88 re, 0.94
40SW Fed HydeaShok |165@ 931, 21.9 mv, 317 E|BR 15.8", 0.58", 4.19cu|CL 21.1", 0.43", 3.06cu|avg 3.55, 3.98 re, 0.89
40SW Rem G.S. |165@ 952, 22.4 mv, 332 E|BR 13.1", 0.64", 4.21cu|CL 20.0", 0.53", 4.41cu|avg 4.31, 4.16 re, 1.04
40SW Rem G.S. |165@1022, 24.1 mv, 382 E|BR 14.8", 0.65", 4.89cu|CL 14.3", 0.66", 4.91cu|avg 4.90, 4.80 re, 1.02
40SW Fed HydraShok |165@ 943, 22.2 mv, 325 E|BR 18.2", 0.63", 5.69cu|CL 19.4", 0.56", 4.77cu|avg 5.23, 4.08 re, 1.28
40SW Win Ranger T. |180@ 947, 24.4 mv, 358 E|BR 13.8", 0.69", 5.14cu|CL 13.7", 0.70", 5.25cu|avg 5.20, 4.90 re, 1.06
40SW CCI/Speer GD |180@ 982, 25.3 mv, 385 E|BR 14.5", 0.59", 3.96cu|CL 17.6", 0.60", 4.96cu|avg 4.46, 5.27 re, 0.85
40SW Rem G.S. |180@ 931, 23.9 mv, 346 E|BR 16.8", 0.69", 6.28cu|CL 16.9", 0.63", 5.28cu|avg 5.78, 4.74 re, 1.22
40SW Rem G.S. |180@ 945, 24.3 mv, 356 E|BR 16.9", 0.64", 5.44cu|CL 21.0", 0.43", 3.05cu|avg 4.17, 4.88 re, 0.85
40SW Rem G.S. |180@ 893, 23.0 mv, 318 E|BR 15.7", 0.65", 5.19cu|CL 21.1", 0.51", 4.32cu|avg 4.64, 4.36 re, 1.06
40SW CCI/Speer GD |180@ 958, 24.6 mv, 366 E|BR 14.6", 0.60", 4.13cu|CL 17.1", 0.62", 5.16cu|avg 4.65, 5.02 re, 0.93
40SW Rem G.S. |180@ 954, 24.5 mv, 363 E|BR 14.8", 0.66", 5.06cu|CL 14.8", 0.67", 5.20cu|avg 5.13, 4.98 re, 1.03
40SW Win B.T. |180@ 917, 23.6 mv, 336 E|BR 13.5", 0.69", 5.05cu|CL 14.4", 0.70", 5.54cu|avg 5.29, 4.60 re, 1.15
40SW Hornady XTP |180@ 929, 23.9 mv, 345 E|BR 13.9", 0.64", 4.49cu|CL 18.4", 0.55", 4.38cu|avg 4.44, 4.72 re, 0.94
40SW Fed HydraShok |180@ 969, 24.9 mv, 375 E|BR 14.2", 0.69", 5.29cu|CL 19.8", 0.59", 5.41cu|avg 5.35, 5.13 re, 1.04
40SW Fed Hi-Shok |180@ 960, 24.7 mv, 368 E|BR 14.8", 0.66", 5.05cu|CL 24.0", 0.47", 4.16cu|avg 4.26, 5.04 re, 0.85
40SW Win Ranger SXT |180@ 905, 23.3 mv, 327 E|BR 11.2", 0.70", 4.31cu|CL 13.0", 0.64", 4.18cu|avg 4.25, 4.48 re, 0.95
40SW Win Ranger PG |165@1109, 26.1 mv, 450 E|BR 13.1", 0.73", 5.48cu|CL 14.5", 0.72", 5.90cu|avg 5.69, 5.65 re, 1.01

allegro
01-22-2012, 16:58
My carry is a G23 and I just sold my SigPro .357. Take away the differences in the guns themselves, I found the .357 to be snappier than the .40. I was much more accurate with the .40, though I will tell you that the .357 is much louder and hits VERY hard.

Practice is obviously the key.

Only real downside of the .357 is the cost of ammo. Quite high, even by today's standards.
http://us.mg4.mail.yahoo.com/ya/download?mid=1%5f17499897%5fADa3iGIAAQb0TxnSzw45b2qx6uQ&pid=2.24&fid=Inbox&inline=1
ENJOY

brisk21
01-22-2012, 16:59
Well, .357 sig is just a necked down .40 (the case of the .357 is a hair longer) so your choosing between slightly ligher and faster or slightly heavier and slower. The ammo price/availablity/wider range of choices make me stick with the .40.

moishlashen
01-22-2012, 17:06
I got a G33 barrel for my G27-its fun to shoot. I get inexpensive ammo at Georgia Arms-canned heat and I've never had an issue with it-great range ammo.

HauntedAlabama
01-22-2012, 17:22
Sell the 23 and purchase a Glock 20 10MM. That way you have the power of an anti-tank weapon that fires a .40 sized bullet. You will be ready to end any alien invasion, slaughter hordes of zombies with one shot, and take down Godzilla.





I love the .357 round actually and my daily carry is a Glock 32. I also own a Glock 33 and my wife carries a Glock 27. The .357 sig is a fun round to shoot.

dkf
01-22-2012, 18:02
Are there better penetration values for either or does either round "hit harder" as the .40s&w is said to do over 9mm..?

There are a LOT of variables. The .357sig has been known to offer better barrier penetration. But as I said, lot of variables.

One thing that is nice about the .357sig over .40 is if you load .380 or 9mm you can use those bullets in .357sig also. If your buying factory ammo that don't really matter.

BroknPrism
01-22-2012, 22:06
yeah, this is really a original question!
:popcorn:

Dude, why do you (and others like you) have to do this kind of thing? If we asked and answered every question one time, there'd be nothing to talk about. If you're not going to add anything to the discussion, move on to another thread where you're needed.

Keyword searches on gun forums suck. The OP politely asked, let's be polite and answer.

Snooch..!!!
01-22-2012, 22:35
There's a grouch in every group... :pms:

Dude, why do you (and others like you) have to do this kind of thing? If we asked and answered every question one time, there'd be nothing to talk about. If you're not going to add anything to the discussion, move on to another thread where you're needed.

Keyword searches on gun forums suck. The OP politely asked, let's be polite and answer.

Snooch..!!!
01-22-2012, 22:35
But back on topic, thanks guys I really appreciate all the input..! :wavey:

brisk21
01-23-2012, 08:17
If the ammo cost the same, and supply was the same, Id probably get a .357 sig.

unit1069
01-23-2012, 09:56
Win Ranger +P+ - the name of the load ... (@1320 fps)
... 2.11 cu, approximation of wound volume. (this does not take into account the expansion profile as a function of depth, but it should be roughly proportionate to actual wound volume)

... 0.70 - Average would volume per unit Free Recoil Energy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
357SIG CCI/Speer GD 125@1372 fps ...
...4.54cu|
... 0.90

The 115-grain +P+ round has a documented record of stopping felons.

The above figures should go a long way in explaining why .357sig is not a 9mm bullet on steriods, anymore than .357 Magnum is a .38 Special on steroids.

AWESOMO 4000
01-25-2012, 00:07
The 115-grain +P+ round has a documented record of stopping felons.

The above figures should go a long way in explaining why .357sig is not a 9mm bullet on steriods, anymore than .357 Magnum is a .38 Special on steroids.

Thank you.


One more benefit of the .357SIG that I have found versus both my G22, and a since departed P226, and current P229R: Whatever group it's shooting in .40, can pretty much at least cut that in half with the .357SIG. Whatever the .40 was shooting at 25 yards, the .357 ends up doing it at 50 yards. Might be irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Just the results of a resident .357 honk fanboy homer. Yeah, I know...it's just a 9mm on steroids. But nobody cared what Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa were doing off steroids. :v D

PghJim
01-25-2012, 15:36
Really performance is the same. It is a matter a of style. If you want to look hip in the gun carrying world you have to go with the 357sig. It says, "here is a man who knows what the crap he is doing".

On the other hand, if you see yourself more of the chubby night watchman sort of guy, well then the 40 will say as much about you as the dounut roll of flesh rolling over your belt.

Scoob
01-29-2012, 00:36
Wow the crap is getting deep in here ^^.


I've picked up another 357 sig as I'm planning to start reloading it again. My problem with it has always been an ammo shortage or expense. Reloading is great but the necked case is a bit frustrating at first. I am looking forward to re-learning it. Wishing I had never dropped it now TBH or maybe I'm just bored and want to play around with it again.

I like it but I've never jumped on the band wagon of all these rediculous claims people on forums often make. It's just brass, lead, and powder to me.:supergrin:

Since when have cartridges been accurate rather than the gun? Kinda putting the cart before the horse I'd say. Unless there is something inherently wrong with the design of a cartridge such as the original 38 super which would headspace on the semi-rim.

I've never gotten better accuracy with 357 than .40 with factory loads nor my reloads but then, I wasn't expecting to. Maybe if I had been expecting it I would have gotten it?

From my experience loading .40/357 the real difference in ballistics is ( mr. obvious here:supergrin:) the size and weight of the bullet. In fact it's possible to equalize one of those variables by loading similar bullet weights to the same velocities. I just see them as far more alike than different. That is why I dropped the 357 the first time. I loaded from powder puff loads to nearly max and it was like, for all my effort I was loading the same cartridge twice.

IMHO It comes down to personal choice. I know that is the standard boring anwer.:whistling:

cowboy1964
01-29-2012, 14:02
Whatever group it's shooting in .40, can pretty much at least cut that in half with the .357SIG. Whatever the .40 was shooting at 25 yards, the .357 ends up doing it at 50 yards.

Even if that were not a huge overstatement, that's assuming the shooter can shoot that well. I'll bet 99.9% of shooters cannot.

If anyone has links to testing showing 357 Sig achieves sub-1" groups at 25 yards, let's see them.

Frank V
01-29-2012, 15:46
Heck I'm saving for a .40 to .357 bbl. Then I can try the .357!:supergrin::supergrin:
Frank

cowboy1964
01-29-2012, 18:02
Heck I'm saving for a .40 to .357 bbl. Then I can try the .357!:supergrin::supergrin:
Frank

One of the reasons I picked up an M&P 40 is because S&W .357 barrels can be had for $78 from Midway.... if they ever get in stock! Right now they are quoting April availability. Two weeks ago it was February. The other choice is a LoneWolf for about $135.

I dunno. I think the 357 Sig is a great round but so is the .40.

michael e
01-29-2012, 18:08
357sig is fun at the range. Everyone comes and ask what you are shooting. I shoot the 40sw better but have put alot more rounds down range in 40sw.

davsco
01-29-2012, 18:49
my viewpoint is glocks are relatively inexpensive enough, to just get another gun if you want another caliber. there is obviously the hassle of switching barrels, springs and the like, with a potential reliability issue, negating what glocks are really known for. plus a safety issue of putting ammo in one caliber in a magazine marked with another caliber.

PghJim
01-29-2012, 19:05
Even if that were not a huge overstatement, that's assuming the shooter can shoot that well. I'll bet 99.9% of shooters cannot.

If anyone has links to testing showing 357 Sig achieves sub-1" groups at 25 yards, let's see them.

What do you mean, "shoot that well". All he said was that he gets half the group size when he is shooting the 357 sig. as compared to the 40. Both shooting the best handloads I have for each caliber, I get about the same outcome. He made no claim on how good he can shoot, and was just speaking relatively.

1canvas
01-29-2012, 19:30
my viewpoint is glocks are relatively inexpensive enough, to just get another gun if you want another caliber. there is obviously the hassle of switching barrels, springs and the like, with a potential reliability issue, negating what glocks are really known for. plus a safety issue of putting ammo in one caliber in a magazine marked with another caliber.

just the barrel and that can be changed almost as quick as a mag. as far as reliability its the same gun as a .40, only difference is the barrel.

GVFlyer
01-29-2012, 22:09
Thank you.


One more benefit of the .357SIG that I have found versus both my G22, and a since departed P226, and current P229R: Whatever group it's shooting in .40, can pretty much at least cut that in half with the .357SIG. Whatever the .40 was shooting at 25 yards, the .357 ends up doing it at 50 yards. Might be irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Just the results of a resident .357 honk fanboy homer. Yeah, I know...it's just a 9mm on steroids. But nobody cared what Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa were doing off steroids. :v D

That's been my observation as well. I have both .40 S&W and .357 Sig barrels for my Sig P239 SAS and H&K USP Compact - both guns are more accurate with the .357 Sig barrels installed.

1canvas
01-30-2012, 06:00
i also seem to shoot the sig better than the .40 out of my 23 using a g32 barrel. i'm not saying one is more accurate, just that i shoot one better than the other.

NM Mountainman
01-31-2012, 18:20
Thanks to barth for posting comparative ballistics in post #7. IMO, when it comes to comparing the effectiveness of various types of handgun ammunition, it is often more informative and helpful to compare specific loads rather than to try to make a more general comparison between two different calibers.

For example, How does the 357 Sig 125 gr Gold Dot load compare to the .40 S&W Gold Dot 165 gr load in terminal performance?

According to gelatin test info published by Speer, the 357 Sig 125 gr Gold Dot yields a velocity of 1350 fps. In bare gelatin: penetration = 14.3" expansion dia. = .62" In 4 layer denim test: pen. = 18.3" exp. = .53"

In contrast, the .40 S&W 165 gr Gold Dot yields a velocity of 1100 fps. Bare gelatin pen. = 13.3", exp. = .67". 4 layer denim pen. = 18", exp. = .62"

When it comes to comparing the performance of the two Gold Dot loads, there seems to be no reason to prefer the 357 Sig load over the .40 S&W load. Both loads give comparable penetration, but the .40 S&W load yields a little larger expanded diameter. Including the results of barrier tests will also give additional info.

You will get different results when you compare different loads which are available for these two cartridges. That is my point. When it comes to terminal performance comparisons, comparing specific loads in two different cartridges often provides more useful info. than trying to make the more general comparison of one cartridge (aka caliber) to another.

Of course, there are other considerations besides penetration and expansion such as cost & availability of ammo, comparative muzzle blast, and comparative recoil. Many of the previous posts did a good job of exploring these issues as well.

PghJim
01-31-2012, 18:42
Of course, there are other considerations besides penetration and expansion such as cost & availability of ammo, comparative muzzle blast, and comparative recoil. Many of the previous posts did a good job of exploring these issues as well.

There are other factors to be concidered. If it would be as simple as you pronouncement a 45 would always be the best load. No matter what is said here, velocity does matter which translates to energy. If you really do not believe it matters I would do with the 40.

Also, have you shot a 40 165gr next to a 125gr 357Sig. I find the sig much easier to shoot.

SDGlock23
02-01-2012, 08:37
If you're into "light and fast", the 357 Sig is the way to go. I have found it to be accurate and mild in the recoil dept. I wouldn't go so far as to call it better than the .40, since "better" is a topic of hot discussion. I like them both.

cowboy1964
02-01-2012, 13:49
Another advantage to 357 Sig over .40: weight. Every 8 rounds you carry saves you about an ounce. Not a big deal but it helps. Two 15-round mags of 357 Sig weigh almost 4 oz less than the .40 (180gr .40's). OTOH, "heavy for caliber" and heavy bullet fans in general won't care about 4 oz.

dkf
02-01-2012, 18:40
One thing I've noticed with all my Glock mags whether 15rd, 13rd or 9rd is that the last round goes in nicely with little pressure when loaded with .357sig. When I load the same mags with .40 the last round is a real bear to get in the mag. I figure it is because the smaller diameter bullet on the .357sig allows the rounds to "nest" closer to each other.:dunno:

I know some people just download th emag by one or add an extension but that is not even an option for me, will not do either.

Bigpoppie50
02-01-2012, 19:16
my viewpoint is glocks are relatively inexpensive enough, to just get another gun if you want another caliber. there is obviously the hassle of switching barrels, springs and the like, with a potential reliability issue, negating what glocks are really known for. plus a safety issue of putting ammo in one caliber in a magazine marked with another caliber.You know I thought the same thing i.e. reliability issues when changing barrels but what I have found since I've had my S&WM&P357Sig(2years) when I put my 40S&W barrel in, reliability does not suffer one ounce. I have not had a failure of any kind while shooting either barrel. Accuracy from either barrel is outstanding. I thought about getting a lone wolf 357Sig barrel for my Gen4 Glock22 but I am going to hold off on that since I probably wouldn't use it much at all.

PghJim
02-01-2012, 21:03
One thing I've noticed with all my Glock mags whether 15rd, 13rd or 9rd is that the last round goes in nicely with little pressure when loaded with .357sig. When I load the same mags with .40 the last round is a real bear to get in the mag. I figure it is because the smaller diameter bullet on the .357sig allows the rounds to "nest" closer to each other.:dunno:

I know some people just download th emag by one or add an extension but that is not even an option for me, will not do either.

It is the way the 357 sig mag is set up now. It now has a completely different follower than the 40 and there are two nubs (one on each side) that keep the round straight. I had trouble with the nubs on a couple of magazines in that they were impeding the top 357 sig round from raising up. I was getting failures to feed so I trimmed them down a little and everying is OK. I do not believe it is a design problem, but rather a manufacturing one. But the 357 sig mag are more 357 specific. I bought new magazines for the 40. I have not shot enough 40 in the 357 mags to know if this difficulty causes unreliability when loaded with 40.