Does the 357sig have any redeeming value?

faustulus · Apr 13, 2005

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

357MAG Fed JHP |125@1265, 22.6 mv, 444 E|BR 10.7", 0.49", 2.01cu|CL 11.8", 0.51", 2.40cu|avg 2.20, 4.22 re, 0.52

For a long time the Federal 125 gr. .357 was held up as one of the best 'man stopppers' around (in people not jello).
Looking at the data on your website the .357 Sig is a pretty close match.

So you're telling me that the mechanisms identified by experts for wounding effectiveness and incapacitation are invalid?

See: M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle.
or to put it another way see what Einstein said about mathematics and reality.

Zak Smith · Apr 13, 2005

For a long time the Federal 125 gr. .357 was held up as one of the best 'man stopppers' around (in people not jello).
Looking at the data on your website the .357 Sig is a pretty close match.

By the same argument, both are virtually identical to 9x19.

See: M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle.
or to put it another way see what Einstein said about mathematics and reality.

Feel free to apply your rational faculties to revolutionize modern terminal ballistics science. Until then...
:neener:

-z

ETA: In light of Einstein's quote, it is ironic that he himself refused to accept the full implications of his own math (re: quantum uncertainty), which have proven correct in the last 60 years.

fulloflead · Apr 13, 2005

I read that whole 357 fan website. It kept talking about how there were different 357 loads depending on use (expansion or penetration), but it never said which loads were best for penetration.

I'm thinking about getting one as a "Trail Gun" and I would want the best penetrating load. What would that be?

Zak Smith · Apr 13, 2005

A solid non-expanding bullet will always penetrate the most, with distance increasing as velocity increases.

fulloflead · Apr 13, 2005

Flat point you think? 147-grain?
Actually all the "FMJ" ammo I see at Midway USA is actually FP and not RN.

Brad Johnson · Apr 13, 2005

So let's see,

A 357. Mag revolver with a 130 gr projectile at 1300 fps is generally considered one of the top cartridges around for self defense, but the .357 Sig with almost identical terminal ballistics (125gr @ 1350 fps) is considered a poor performer!?

Sigh... :banghead:

Just to clarify that the numbers above come directly from the Federal web site. I looked up the muzzle velocities for the Premium Personal Defense versions of both cartridges.

Brad

Domino · Apr 13, 2005

By the same argument, both are virtually identical to 9x19.

Uh, I wouldn't say that. I have chronographed my G19 with 115g FMJ at 1000
1100 fps. Even the +p's will not reach the 1400 fps out of a 4" barrel. While the wound metric volume might be similar, they are quite different in nature.

Back to average wound volume metric, the best 9x19 load is 10% better than the 357SIG datapoint, and a regular old 115gr Gold Dot is only 17% worse. Looking at that distribution, what does 357SIG give you?

Put it this way. Do you think that a 9mm has substantial penetration to go through someones arm that is front of thier chest; and then penetrate the persons chest cavity suffiently for a lethal blow? The main reason why so many LEO's of the past have loved the .357 magnum is do to the fact that penetration is important for a carry gun.

I don't care what information you try to show us, the 9mm is NOT as deadly as the .357 SIG. If the gains in power are not significant enough for someone to justify the cartridge than so be it, but a 200+ fps gain is nothing to laugh at.

I think the .357 SIG has some worthwhile characteristics, such as interchangabilty with .40 S&W guns and the fact that its the closest thing yet to the power of a .357 magnum in a pistol suitable for carry.

Zak Smith · Apr 13, 2005

A 357. Mag revolver with a 130 gr projectile at 1300 fps is generally considered one of the top cartridges around for self defense, but the .357 Sig with almost identical terminal ballistics (125gr @ 1350 fps) is considered a poor performer!?

Reading is fundamental. The data seems to show that 9x19, 357SIG, and 357MAG are basically indistinguishable in the FBI protocol tests, not that the 357MAG is considered a poor performer.

By the way, how do you know they have "almost identical terminal ballistics?" Do you have FBI results for that 130gr load?

Uh, I wouldn't say that. I have chronographed my G19 with 115g FMJ at 1000
1100 fps. Even the +p's will not reach the 1400 fps out of a 4" barrel. While the wound metric volume might be similar, they are quite different in nature.

Are they? What measurable differences are there in terminal effects?

I don't care what information you try to show us, the 9mm is NOT as deadly as the .357 SIG. If the gains in power are not significant enough for someone to justify the cartridge than so be it, but a 200+ fps gain is nothing to laugh at.

In other words, you have no science or data to back up your dogma, and are going to continue to ignore any data which doesn't back up that dogma.

Do you think that a 9mm has substantial penetration to go through someones arm that is front of thier chest; and then penetrate the persons chest cavity suffiently for a lethal blow?

With the right ammuntion, it is clearly true that 9x19 has that ability

In the easiest medium to expand in (bare gel, no chance of clogging and not expanding in covering clothing), from the same data-set, here are the best penetrators in bare gel:

Code:

9x19    Hornady XTP     |147@ 918, 19.3 mv, 275 E|BR 22.1", 0.44", 3.36cu
10mm    Hornady XTP     |200@1056, 30.2 mv, 495 E|BR 21.4", 0.58", 5.65cu
9x19    Fed HydraShok   |147@ 995, 20.9 mv, 323 E|BR 21.4", 0.37", 2.30cu
40SW    Fed HydraShok   |165@ 943, 22.2 mv, 325 E|BR 18.2", 0.63", 5.69cu
9x19    Rem             |147@ 987, 20.7 mv, 318 E|BR 18.1", 0.51", 3.71cu
45ACP   Win             |230@ 802, 26.4 mv, 328 E|BR 17.9", 0.60", 5.06cu
40SW    Rem G.S.        |180@ 945, 24.3 mv, 356 E|BR 16.9", 0.64", 5.44cu
40SW    Rem G.S.        |180@ 931, 23.9 mv, 346 E|BR 16.8", 0.69", 6.28cu
10mm    Norma           |170@1358, 33.0 mv, 695 E|BR 16.6", 0.59", 4.52cu
45ACP   Fed HydraShok   |230@ 878, 28.8 mv, 393 E|BR 16.6", 0.66", 5.66cu
357MAG  Fed JHP         |158@1200, 27.1 mv, 505 E|BR 16.5", 0.50", 3.24cu
45ACP   Rem             |185@ 903, 23.9 mv, 335 E|BR 16.2", 0.70", 6.23cu
357SIG  CCI/Speer GD    |125@1372, 24.5 mv, 522 E|BR 16.1", 0.60", 4.54cu
45ACP   CCI/Speer GD    |230@ 896, 29.4 mv, 409 E|BR 16.0", 0.69", 5.98cu
40SW    Fed HydeaShok   |165@ 931, 21.9 mv, 317 E|BR 15.8", 0.58", 4.19cu
10mm    CCI/Speer PHP   |180@ 992, 25.5 mv, 393 E|BR 15.8", 0.72", 6.44cu
357MAG  Win Silvertip   |145@1166, 24.2 mv, 437 E|BR 15.8", 0.58", 4.17cu

Brad Johnson · Apr 13, 2005

By the way, how do you know they have "almost identical terminal ballistics?" Do you have FBI results for that 130gr load?

Go back and reread the post. Same projectile family - Federal Personal Defense - gives virtualy identical construction techniques and materials. In addition, there is a statistically insignificant difference in bullet weight (3.85%) and muzzle velocity (3.7%).

The bottom line is that the .357 Mag has a proven stopping record. It is one of the best. The .357 Sig, in 125-130gr bullet weights, has identical terminal ballistics. Soooo.... Similar velocity from a similar projectile, regardless of the cartridge from whence it came, equates to similar stopping power. Or from another perspective, how can there be a significant difference if it is a similar object traveling at a similar speed at the point of impact? That's simple physics.

Brad

Zak Smith · Apr 13, 2005

By the way, how do you know they have "almost identical terminal ballistics?" Do you have FBI results for that 130gr load?

Click to expand...

Go back and reread the post. Same projectile family - Federal Personal Defense - gives virtualy identical construction techniques and materials. In addition, there is a statistically insignificant difference in bullet weight (3.85%) and muzzle velocity (3.7%).

So you don't have any data, then?

Since you keep repeating that 357MAG is one of the stoppin'-est rounds in existence, regardless if that data is correct, what evidence do you have that that particular Federal load performs like the canonical 357MAG load?

Note that bullet choice can trump caliber choice. For example, the 9x19 Win Ranger Talon (147) load has superior FBI data to the 45ACP Fed Hi-Shok (185gr). Just look at the ordered list to see how often this is true.

This observation is why saying "Pick your choice of 9x19, 40SW, or 45ACP (or 357MAG), use premium defensive ammunition, and practice" is good advice -- there just isn't that big of a difference, if any, between modern defensive ammo in these calibers, although there are general trends like the best 45 is better than the best 40 is better than the bets 9x19, etc.

The bottom line is that the .357 Mag has a proven stopping record. It is one of the best. The .357 Sig, in 125-130gr bullet weights, has identical terminal ballistics. Soooo.... Similar velocity from a similar projectile, regardless of the cartridge from whence it came, equates to similar stopping power.

That is all well and good but does nothing to show how 357SIG or 357MAG are superior to 9x19 for defense.

To be clear, I've got nothing against 357SIG, 357MAG, 9x23, 38S, etc. But if you guys are going to claim they actually have better terminal performance than something else, you better have data to back it up.

Marko Kloos · Apr 13, 2005

Oh, give it a rest already.

You find one particular test protocol that supports your position that an extra 200fps of velocity and an extra 150fpe of energy make no difference in terminal performance, and you cling to that argument like Dean Speir to his kB! theories.

There are agencies that disagree with that notion, otherwise we wouldn't have seen a dozen or so SP agencies and the USSS and FAMs switch to .357SIG.

How about you go on having your opinion, and we other kids go on having ours? It's not like I'm spending your money when I buy my .357SIG carry ammo.

Brad Johnson · Apr 13, 2005

To be clear, I've got nothing against 357SIG, 357MAG, 9x23, 38S, etc. But if you guys are going to claim they actually have better terminal performance than something else, you better have data to back it up

.

Okay, so where's yours? You give some ballistics gel lab tests, which is all well and good but is only a starting point. I'll stand my ground on the .357 Mag due to oh, half a century or so of proven street performance where, by the way, the .357 Sig is prving to be a similar performer. My source? It's just this l'il bitty little organization called Texas Department of Public Safety.

Brad

Zak Smith · Apr 13, 2005

You find one particular test protocol that supports your position that an extra 200fps of velocity and an extra 150fpe of energy make no difference in terminal performance, and you cling to that argument like Dean Speir to his kB! theories.

In my second reply to you, I asked if you had any scientific basis for a different set of criteria or methods for evaluating terminal ballistics effectiveness. If you do, go ahead and post them. Maybe 357SIG performs better through sheet metal, or through poor body armor, or through football helmets-- I don't know. That would certainly be interesting data (well, besides the helmets). Heck, I even dug up the auto glass penetration data, in case it would help you guys.

You find one particular test protocol that supports your position

This is a gross misrepresentation when it is the standard basis for test protocols. Even the various US Military services have agreed to the basic process for ammo evaluation (see the NDIA "Interim" report from last year).

How about you go on having your opinion, and we other kids go on having ours? It's not like I'm spending your money when I buy my .357SIG carry ammo

If you'd like to conclude this thread by saying that you like 357SIG, because you like how it shoots, or because the bullets are pretty, or some other subjective reason, go ahead.

Claiming that it has certain attributes (eg, superior terminal effects to caliber X) without providing reliable data is sloppy thinking and irresponsible.

Brad,

Where's my what? In a debate, the person who makes a claim is responsible for providing data to defend that claim. Some here have claimed that 357SIG has superior terminal effects. However, data resulting from the best known scientific methods used by professionals in the field to study terminal effects does not show that, at least for the cases we've looked at (bare, clothed, and auto glass barrier).

The only other person to bring any scientific data to this thread besides me was coylh, and he happened to bring data that was already incorporated into my compilation anyway.

-z

30 cal slob · Apr 13, 2005

Guess I should mix up a batch of ballistic gelatin and bring the Chrony to the range.

Might be a good weekend to do my own taste test.

p.s. It's nice to see what a pistol round will do at 100 yards, but, isn't that distance kinda irrelevant?

Peter M. Eick · Apr 13, 2005

Yes, It has one redeeming value.

In the 229 sport, it is sure fun to shoot!

The sig and its big brother!

MrAcheson · Apr 13, 2005

To answer the original question, it is flat shooting and the high kinetic energy should give it slightly more penetration than a similar 9mm especially on hard targets.

In the end though, its a 9mm. Does flat shooting really matter in a handgun you will be firing at 3-15 yards? Probably not. Maybe that speed will allow it to penetrate more, but once you get past 12" does it really matter? At that point what you really want is lots of expansion and 357sig isn't going to expand any more than the equivalent 9mm.

From a performance standpoint you are probably better off stepping up to .40 S&W and making a bigger hole.

coylh · Apr 13, 2005

Handgun cartridge accuracy is wasted on me: I'm happy if they stay on the pie plate.

Zak: I think you're giving the .357 a bit of a hard time, based on one data point. Also, I don't think it's valid to compare different kinds of bullets: .357sig vs 9x19, not bullet A vs. bullet B.

Even in the data you're using, and with the method you prefer, the single .357sig data point is better than 6 out of 7 9x19.

Type Weight Velocity Penetration Final Hole volume
9mm+P GD 124 1123 13.4 0.68 4.87
.357 SIG GD 125 1372 16.1 0.6 4.55
9mm GD 115 1197 12.8 0.67 4.51
9mm GD 115 1259 12.3 0.67 4.34
9mm+P GD 124 1155 13.2 0.62 3.99
9mm GD 147 924 14.8 0.57 3.78
9mm GD 124 1068 12.6 0.59 3.44

Clothed 9mm+P GD 124 1223 20.2 0.53 4.46
Clothed .357 SIG GD 125 1372 19.1 0.54 4.37
Clothed 9mm GD 124 1068 17.5 0.51 3.57
Clothed 9mm+P GD 124 1155 16.1 0.53 3.55
Clothed 9mm GD 147 924 14.7 0.55 3.49
Clothed 9mm GD 115 1197 22.6 0.44 3.44
Clothed 9mm GD 115 1259 22.1 0.4 2.78
Clothed 9mm GD 124 1116 22 0.36 2.24

Think firearmstactical will shoot up a couple dozen jello bricks if I drive over with a case of ammo?

Zak Smith · Apr 13, 2005

Yeah, I agree it would be helpful if there was more 357SIG data on FTI. I'll dig up some more at the end of this post.

I kind of see your point of about comparing the same bullet type, but then again, I'm not sure it's valid either. It's certainly possible that a particular bullet design is good for one terminal performance regime, while poor for another. In that case, it would be doing a disservice to the caliber of the second regime when there is perhaps another bullet design that performs better there instead.

Your summary does highlight the performance similarity of 357SIG and 9x19, which is what I've been trying to get across here since about reply #2.

I'm not sure saying it beat 6/7 or whatever is a useful metric, besides showing us that there are a lot of sucky defense loads out there.

Here, I'll do some more homework for y'alls. From the calibers-l email list archives. I am not responsible for this data.

From Winchester's 2002 Law Enforcement Catalog (numbers are pen / exp / retained weight)

RA9TA 9x19mm "T" Series
127gr +p+ @ 1,250fps = 441 ft-lbs

bare: 12.3" / 0.64" / 93%
IWBA: 12.5" / 0.68" / 97%
wallboard: 12.1" / 0.66" / 96%
auto glass: 9.4" / 0.48" / 58%

RA357SIGT 357SIG "T" Series
125gr @ 1,350fps = 506 ft-lbs

bare: 10.9" / 0.63" / 81%
IWBA: 12.1" / 0.66" / 100%
wallboard: 15.4" / 0.48" / 98%
auto glass: 10.3" / 0.49" / 65%

P357SHST1-.357 SIG 125gr, P229 SIG-

Bare Gelatin: 1319 fps 13.95/.651
Heavy Clothing: 1328 fps 15.5/.580
Wallboard: 1326 fps 13.7/.588
Plywood: 1326 fps 15.1/.586
Steel: 1331 fps 20.5/.460
Auto Glass: 1318 fps 12.85/.434

P9HST1 124gr 9MM Glock 17-

Bare Gelatin: 1181 fps 13.05/.649"
Heavy Clothing: 1172 fps 14.5/.57
Wallboard: 1177 fps 12.75/.59
Plywood: 1181 fps 13.3/.58
Steel: 1166 fps 16.8/.46
Auto Glass: 1180 fps 12.8/.43

after heavy cloth:

124/9 +P GD 1220 fps 20.25/.53
125/357S GD 1370 fps 19/.54

124/9 GS +P 1140 fps 13/.60
125/357S GSB 1360 fps 13/.61

125/357Mag, 3 in M13, 1265 fps, 11.75/.51
115/9 +P+ 1235 fps 10.6/.62

through steel and glass:

125/357 SIG GD 15/.55, 13/.55
125/357 SIG HST 20/.46, 12.8/.44
125/357SIG Ranger T 23.4/.41, 10.3/.49

127/9 RT +P+ 20.5/.40, 9.4/.48
124/9 PG +P 20.2/.39, 11.9/.45
124/9 GD +P xx/xx, 13/.55
147/9 RT 17.45, 10.8/.52
124/9 HST 16.8/.47, 12.85/.44
124/9 EFMJ +P 11.1/.49, 8.6/.51
147/9 HST 18.6/.44, 12.24/.42
147/9 HS 17.2/.45, 11.4/.52
147/9 GSB 21.4/.42, 11.3/.54

>From XD-9/40/357 through denim:

124/9 +P GD 14/.60
125/357SIG GD 15/.61

Speer 124 +P Gold Dot

bare 11.8/.72
cloth 14.1/.60
glass 14.9/.54

Win 127 +P+ Ranger T

bare 12.3/.64
cloth 12.2/.68
glass 9.4/.48

Rem 124 +P Golden Saber Bonded

bare 12/.65
cloth 12.7/60
glass 10.5/.55

For Comparison:

357SIG 125 GD
bare 15/.61
cloth 17.5/.52
glass 13/.55

125 Ranger T
bare 10.9/.63
cloth 10.7/.69
glass 10.3/.49

Speer, FBI, Texas DPS tests:
124/9 +P GD 14.95/.54
125/357Mag 13.5/.45
125/357SIG GD 13/.55
147 RT 10.8/52
125/357SIG RT 10.3/.49
127 +P+ RT 9.4/.48

The 124-125gr loads in 9x19 or 357SIG look like peas in a pod to me...

coylh · Apr 14, 2005

Zak: "I'm not sure saying it beat 6/7 or whatever is a useful metric ..."

Hey, it's your scoring system and your data...

How much better does it have to be, to be worthwhile?

Zak Smith · Apr 14, 2005

No, I just mean that for example in a race, you say a runner came in 1st or 2nd place over-all, not that he beat 37/38 people. Ie, saying that he beat 37 people doesn't give us a whole lot of information, because that 37 could just as well be 50 if 13 other joggers entered a 5k race.

How much better does it have to be, to be worthwhile?

Well, if it were a little better than the best 9x19 load, it would at least marginally support the claim that it had superior terminal performance. Since it doesn't really do that - especially when you look at that whole list of comparison data, the best we can say is that the effects are basically identical compared to premium 9x19 loads.

medmo · Apr 14, 2005

Jello Anyone?

The bottle neck design of this round contributes to reliability. The bottle neck cartridge vs. straight wall cartridge reliability isn't even an argument when it comes to auto-loader round. It's pure physics.

If all of the 40S&W folks don't think that a little more "zip" on the same bullet weight makes a difference than they should check out 10mm results. It does conclusively. Now feel free to chuck the 40Short&Weak and step up to to some real ballistics. The 40S&W is a duplicate of a really down loaded 10mm load.

Of course there is a plus with this round vs. 9mm. It would be like comparing 44spec vs. 44mag, 357mag vs. 38spc, 32S&Wlong vs. 32 H&R mag, 22lr vs 22mag, 45LC standard vs. 45Lc +p, etc.........

It goes faster. Simple math. It does better.

faustulus · Apr 14, 2005

Zak,
I assume you are contesting the .357 magnums record in the field. And basing your arguement totally on labratory data. While this is useful to a point ANY good scientist will tell you that data can only be carried so far. In the lab the number of varibles is small enough that the data can be 'pure' (hence the reason the lab is a great place for experiments.) But in the field there are simply too many variables to count. That doesn't mean you can disregard the data obtained there.
there is about 200 fps difference in the 9mm and the .357, but as you know that is velocity and is squared in the energy equation (you may disregard it if you wish but engery is important in wounding any way you draw up the statistics.)
The .357 magnum was introduced in the 1930s and has seen extensive field testing and while I don't have the data on hand to prove it, there are a lot of dead men who would be willing to testify to its effectiveness. (come to think of it I don't have the data on hand that says the bumblebee can fly, but that doesn't mean it isn't out there.)

Zak Smith · Apr 14, 2005

faustulus,

You can draw whatever conclusion you want about 357MAG. Some in this thread have claimed that 357SIG has superior terminal results to other calibers, but have not shown any data to support that claim.

With regard to historical data, certainly if something has been performing to a certain level, the development and advancement of competitors does not diminish the absolute performance of that original thing. However, relative to competitors, it may lose its relative advantage. Furthermore, such historical data cannot be used to compare the performance of contemporary designs when one of the competing items hadn't even been around until very recently.

For example, if we were comparing 357MAG to 10mm as they perform today, it would be a fallacy to use historical data from 1930 to 1980 to conclude that the 357MAG was superior because 10mm didn't even exist then. And even if 10mm was shown to be superior based on modern data, that does nothing to diminish the historic performance of 357MAG, it would just show that if you chose today, 10mm would be a better choice, but 357MAG would still be a solid performer. (I am not arguing about 357MAG or 10mm, just using those as an illustrative example.)

(you may disregard it if you wish but engery is important in wounding any way you draw up the statistics.)

http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm

Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness
Special Agent UREY W. PATRICK
FIREARMS TRAINING UNIT
FBI ACADEMY
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA
July 14, 1989
[...]
Kinetic energy does not wound. Temporary cavity does not wound. The much discussed "shock" of bullet impact is a fable and "knock down" power is a myth. The critical element is penetration. The bullet must pass through the large, blood bearing organs and be of sufficient diameter to promote rapid bleeding. Penetration less than 12 inches is too little, and, in the words of two of the participants in the 1987 Wound Ballistics Workshop, "too little penetration will get you killed." 42,43 Given desirable and reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound by increasing the size of hole made by the bullet. Any bullet which will not penetrate through vital organs from less than optimal angles is not acceptable. Of those that will penetrate, the edge is always with the bigger bullet.44

So by all means, bring data & references that show how energy makes a difference.

I may not be able to respond until Monday, so I apologize for a delay in subsequent responses.

The Rabbi · Apr 14, 2005

I dont know whether the ballistics of .357SIG are better, worse or equal to 9mm. But I think this is the deciding factor:

Cheapest .357 SIG--Selier& Bellot 1,000 rd 140gr fmj--$195.00
.357 SIG self-defense--Federal 150 gr JHP 50 rounds--19.95

Cheapest 9mm--Independence 115gr 1000 rd --$99.95
9mm PP ammo--Winchester 115gr Silvertip 50 rds--$16.96

Added to that the many variations of 9mm available for different bullet weights, styles, +P, +P+ etc I dont know why anyone would buy .357SIG other than "kewl" factor.

Archangel · Apr 14, 2005

No, I just mean that for example in a race, you say a runner came in 1st or 2nd place over-all, not that he beat 37/38 people. Ie, saying that he beat 37 people doesn't give us a whole lot of information, because that 37 could just as well be 50 if 13 other joggers entered a 5k race.

Not quite the same argument. It's like saying "men run faster than women" based on a race where 1 woman ran against 100 men and came in second. Sure, that one man ran faster than that one woman, but in general?

Now, if you were saying that Winchester Ranger Talon 147gr 9mm is better than Speer Gold Dot 125gr 357SIG, I might agree with you, based on your data. (I say might for several reasons - more on that later).

But you're saying that in general, 9mm is better than 357SIG, and your data just doesn't hold up to that. Your one single 357SIG data point beats out all but 3 of your 26 9mm data points. Average things out by caliber, and the 357SIG will certainly be on top. (note also that 8 of those 26 9mm loads outright fail the FBI protocol by not meeting the 12" minimum penetration).

So that's flaw number one in your argument - insuficient data points to compare.

Flaw number 2 is the estimated wound volume. To be really scientific, we should be measuring the volume of liquid that fills the permanent cavity in the gelatin. Penetration * expansion is not accurate because the expansion is happening while the bullet is penetrating. The bullet that starts expanding faster, and reaches full expansion sooner, will have a larger wound volume. (And since velocity directly contributes to expansion, this would tend to tip the scale toward 357SIG's 100-400fps advantage over 9mm)

Also, the expanded diameter is measured across the widest point. It doesn't mean that the bullet is a full circle of that diameter. While the Ranger Talon's "talons" do expand out to a wider diameter than other bullets, it's more of a "star" shape instead of a "circle." Therefore, the frontal area may not be as large as a slightly smaller diameter, say, Gold Dot. Really, we should be multiplying frontal area * penetration depth to get a better estimate of wound volume.

Finally, while this isn't directly part of your argument, the "best bang for the buck" rating you have on your website is flawed. It handycaps the higher energy calibers for having more recoil, when in fact it is that higher energy that contributes to higher wound volumes. Note that the best by far calibers based on wound volume per recoil are the .380 ACP and .38 special loads, all of which fail the FBI's 12" minimum penetration requirement.

Does the 357sig have any redeeming value?

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Moderator Emeritus

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Attachments

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

member

Member

Attachments

Similar threads