.357SIG or .40S&W?

Status
Not open for further replies.

chaim

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
3,846
Location
Columbia, MD
Even though this is a "which caliber" thread, I do not want to start a caliber war, and it is definitely not a "which caliber is more effective" thread. I am a firm believer that for self defense purposes, with proper ammo selection, all the major service caliber auto calibers are very close in performance and when you weigh each one's advantages and disadvantages, they are basically a wash. So, why this thread? I am deciding between the two, it really isn't a question of "better" but preference.

So, what is your preference and why?

I am in the market for a mid-sized pistol for both CCW and fun at the range (think Glock 23 or Springfield XD size).

I don't currently have a working .40 (though once I finally get around to sending my Taurus PT140 M. Pro to Taurus for work I will again, but I haven't been in a hurry to do so for the past couple years). I do have about 500 rounds of .40S&W that I need to shoot up. While, all the calibers are pretty equal, I do generally have a slight preference for a bigger hole in case the JHP does fail to expand.

I have never had a .357SIG. I have long thought about one since the .357mag has long been in my top two or three handgun calibers (revolver or auto). Even though all the major calibers, with proper ammo selection, are pretty close, this does seem to be more consistent in both expansion and penetration than 9mm. It may be a little more interesting than .40S&W.


Whichever way I go, if it is available for the gun, I'll probably buy an additional barrel in the other chambering, but that would only be for range use.

Also, keep in mind before posting "buy a 9" or "buy a .45," I already have 9s and .45s in both range and defensive guns. If I did go with a 9 instead, it would be for the platform (one of the guns I'm considering is the CZ PCR), but if both .357SIG and .40S&W are available in the gun I narrow things down to, which would you pick and why?
 
Last edited:
I love my .40's, ditched 9mm for it years ago. I would pick .40 over. 357SIG simply due to availability. I haven't ever seen. 357SIG in my local Wal-Mart, but .40 has always been plentiful, even during the banics.
 
Handgun bullets get their lethality from the shape of the wound they make, unlike rifle bullets whose high energy creates wounding out of proportion to the size of the bullets.

So I really don't understand .357 Sig, where you take the power of .40 and make the bullet smaller, but don't gain any capacity. I think the only people that it really makes sense for are groups like the Secret Service that are incredibly concerned with barrier penetration.


Both .357 and .40 are hard on guns not originally designed to handle the huge recoil impulse of these cartridges. If I really wanted .357 ballistics I would be more inclined to buy a 9mm USP and fire subgun ammo through sometimes.
 
I bought a Sig P239 DAK in .40. Department ammo. Good deal. Bought a 357 SIG barrel and mag to play with. I really like the cartridge. It's hot, shoots flat. Sharp recoil but for me, straight back, no torque.

For me, the bottleneck round is very reliable. You can get +P+ 9mm and get pretty close to 357 SIG but, I'm thinking that's really pushing a 9mm.
 
I favor the 357 SIG.

It does pretty much what it was designed to do; mimic the 125 grain .357 MAG load that a lot of PDs swore by. So by that measure you get to walk around with the effect of two 4" barreled magnum revolvers...................what's not to like???? (My HK P2000 in 357SIG (12+1))

I find it recoils less and is faster to get back on target than the .40. It is LOUDER though. Most loadings put it at about a 9mm +p+ loading, but in a cartridge designed to handle it. Some of the really hot stuff from Buffalo Bore etc. have some great paper stats if you're into that sort of a thing. In theory you pick up some added reliability in that bottlenecks generally feed better as you shove a .355 bullet into a .40 hole. I've found it to be pretty accurate, even when pushing the max.

I reload for both and the .357 SIG is actually cheaper for me to shoot than .40 due to the decreased projectile weights. Factory ammo wise it can be expensive to shoot, cheapest I found was $18.00 per 50. For defensive ammo I carry the Speer GDHPs which are priced about the same as every other premium defensive bullet.

My understanding is it's popular with a few state PDs, the US Air Marshall's, the Secret Service, a couple Fish & Wildlife Departments, so IF I have have to shoot through an automobile or put down a moose, it might give me an advantage.

Chuck
 
Most .40 and .357 Sig guns are 9mm pistols, and the rest of the 9mm pistols are .40 pistols. So if a model gun handles .357, the 9mm version can probably handle some pretty hot stuff, too.

What is nice about having a 9mm that can take some really hot 9mm is that you can still shoot it with loads that are much lighter than what's available in .357 Sig, so the total amount of wear on the gun will be lower.


.357 Sig is supposed to be more feed reliable because of the bottleneck case, but the fact that it is known to be a problem getting it to work well in some .40 pistols makes me doubt that it is actually more reliable than 9mm.


As far as "shooting flat", out to 100 meters 9mm, .40 and .357 Sig are going to seem identical in terms of drop. At 150 meters you'll start to see a difference.



Not trying to be a pain about .357 Sig, but it is a pricey specialty round that is difficult to reload and steals mag capacity for a questionable benefit. Like 5.7mm, .38 Super or 10mm, it is good to know exactly what you're getting for the tradeoff in price and availability against more common calibers.
 
.40, mostly because it's cheaper and more readily available. I am not a reloader (yet) but I have read that .357 SIG is more difficult to reload because it's a bottleneck cartridge.

I keep thinking I should get a .357 barrel for my P229, just to play with, but I never have. One of these days. It is nice to be a barrel change away from a second caliber.
 
RX-79G,

357 SIG has SAAMI Specs, while to my knowledge 9mm +P+ (which you need to use to achieve 357S ballistics) does not.

There's a huge difference between "handling" and being rated for.

Also try finding a manufacturer that guarantees their pistol for 9mm +P+. As we used to say, there is no replacement for displacement, so a 9mm isn't going to come close to a 357S anytime soon.

Besides, wasn't this thread originally about picking between the .40 and 357Sig?? How did you manage to dig 9mm into this?

What are the reliability issues with factory 357S guns (or even factory replacement barrels) you've read of??? Can you please reference some of these "facts"? Some links would be nice.

I do reload 357SIG, and 30+ other calibers. The 357S is different. It does have a BN (so does .30Luger and I load that too). It requires a bullet with a blunt nose profile and a long bearing surface to take advantage of what little neck it has. IF the factory can load accurate, reliable 357S ammo, there's no reason why a reloader with properly adjusted dies can't. A lot of guys like slower case filling powders to help with set-back, but with good neck tension, I've never had a problem. I've literally reloaded 1000's of 357S rounds without an issue.

Chuck
 
"I haven't ever seen. 357SIG in my local Wal-Mart, but .40 has always been plentiful, even during the banics."


That.
 
There is a bunch of useful information on this thread. When I think of 357 Sig, I think loud and expensive. Both of these points have already been mentioned. For these reasons, I would not be interested in a gun that only used 357 Sig.

But having a gun which could easily switch from 40 to 357 is potentially useful. It has already been mentioned that 357 Sig has limited availability in stores, and 40 S&W has done fairly well in recent ammo shortages. But I think in a more serious ammo shortage, things could be the other way around. When I think farther back, there have been shortages of 40 ammo within the last fifteen years. And at those times, less popular ammo was actually more available. So there is always a potential advantage in being able to use more calibers. And if there is ever a real shortage, then 357 Sig might actually be more available.

So if I had to choose one, it would be 40 S&W. But if I could get an extra barrel that would allow me to run either, I might go for it.
 
I converted my Glock 23 and 27 to 357 SIG for CC purposes, have a P229 in 357 SIG and have a couple of Springfield XDM 40's as well (4.5 and 3.8). I like them all. For SD purposes, I like the 357SIG. If you don't reload I'd go with the 40 due to ammo availability and cost. I reload both calibers, so cost doesn't play into it for me.
 
Join Date: October 7, 2011
Posts: 1,425
.40, mostly because it's cheaper and more readily available. I am not a reloader (yet) but I have read that .357 SIG is more difficult to reload because it's a bottleneck cartridge.

I keep thinking I should get a .357 barrel for my P229, just to play with, but I never have. One of these days. It is nice to be a barrel change away from a second caliber.

My thought precisely.
Greg
 
I have a SIG P229 in .40 S&W and bought a 357 SIG barrel and am experimenting with it.

Three things that I feel are absolutely true: 357 SIG is louder, 357 SIG has more muzzle flash, 357 SIG is more expensive.

As for perceived recoil between the two calibers, I don't think there is a huge difference. Yes, they feel different, but I have a hard time choosing which one is more or less difficult to manage. I have had friends try shooting both calibers out of the same pistol, and their opinions are divided.

As to whether there are advantages to offset the definite disadvantages of 357 SIG vs. .40 S&W, I am simply not sure. Many claim 357 SIG has better barrier penetration. .40 caliber obviously carves larger permanent wound channels. I do not believe in "hydrostatic shock" or feel that temporary wound cavities have any real significance wrt handgun calibers.

Many claim 357 SIG feeds better, but I have had absolutely no feed issues with either of my .40 S&W pistols.

I would say, buy a pistol that allows a barrel exchange for the other caliber. If you enjoy shooting 357 SIG more, or are more accurate with it to justify the additional expense, go with it. I doubt anyone but you will be able to make that judgement, however.
 
.357 Sig is a great caliber if you reload. But if you reload, "IMHO", 10mm is a better caliber.
 
It is easier for me to reload the 357 . For some reason , it tales me longer to get the " crimp " the way I want it on the 40 .
 
Several people mentioned reloading... I do reload, but so far only revolver calibers. They are more expensive than auto calibers, and I don't really want to chase brass so they are also easier (the brass stays with the gun until I eject them and they go where I want them).

As for the cost, at least half the time, I buy factory ammo even with revolver calibers due to simple convenience (as a high school teacher, during the school year I average somewhere between 50 and 60 hours a week, and depending upon the week I can easily hit 70 hours some weeks so time is precious). A box of .357mag is around $25, and .45LC is more like $45. So, .357SIG (which I wouldn't shoot every range trip) isn't that bad.

On availability, one of the reasons I'm considering .357SIG (and a .40 barrel, or vice versa) is because it was usually available during the last shortage. I buy much of my ammo online and .357SIG is usually available, and several stores around me carry it regularly. By adding .357SIG (and .40S&W) to my choices, I should be able to find something and go shooting in most shortages. Actually, one of the things that started me thinking about it is I went to a gun store a couple years ago and asked for a box of .357mag. Apparently, neither of us looked closely at the box because i didn't notice until I got home that he gave me a box of .357SIG. Originally, I was thinking about trading, selling or giving it to someone, but after a little while I decided to keep it and shoot it when I got a .357SIG barrel or x-change kit for another gun. Around here, sometimes there are more local choices in .357SIG than in .357mag (at the gun stores anyway, not usually at the big box stores).

I am primarily looking at the platform in the .40 v. .357 question, and some guns I'm considering are .40 only. If I get a .40 (or .357) with available barrels in the other, I'll have both and be able to switch back and forth. However, I will carry only in the original chambering so as not to give the gun one more thing to go wrong. So, I guess my proper question would be (since if I get a gun where I could use both, I will use both), would it be worth going with a 2nd choice gun in order to get a gun in which both barrels are available if my 1st choice is .40S&W only. If (other than "stopping power" since I find that argument unnecessary) one or the other have advantages for carry in your opinion, I'd be interested in that as well (such as the feeding advantages several have mentioned).
 
I have both 40 and 357. I also reload . For some reason I like the 357 sig, The 357 is flat shooting, Accurate., Has a lot of energy behind it. I carry a glock 33. I like it so much
I went out and brought a glock 31, While my glock 22 sits upstairs locked away. Its more expensive to buy ammo for the 357. If I want to make bigger holes, I have 45 s for that.
 
For a range toy I would pick the .357 SIG; for everything else I would go with the .40 S&W.
 
Between the two, I would go for .40 S&W as it's cheaper and much more readily available in my neck of the woods. As the above post stated, a Sig P229 ineither caliber would be a great option if you want the ability to interchange as the only part needed is the conversion barrel. I don't know if this has been addressed recently,but Glocks will require the conversion barrel AND magazines to go between the two calibers.
 
If you plan on shooting a high volume, the comparative ease of reloading .40 and/or finding inexpensive factory ammo may tip the scales against .357 SIG.

But if you're thinking about running a magazine or two through every few months, get whatever tickles your fancy.
 
I am primarily looking at the platform in the .40 v. .357 question, and some guns I'm considering are .40 only. If I get a .40 (or .357) with available barrels in the other, I'll have both and be able to switch back and forth. However, I will carry only in the original chambering so as not to give the gun one more thing to go wrong. So, I guess my proper question would be (since if I get a gun where I could use both, I will use both), would it be worth going with a 2nd choice gun in order to get a gun in which both barrels are available if my 1st choice is .40S&W only. If (other than "stopping power" since I find that argument unnecessary) one or the other have advantages for carry in your opinion, I'd be interested in that as well (such as the feeding advantages several have mentioned).

For a defensive pistol I take caliber for granted as long as it's the minimum of 9mm. I always choose the gun based on the action/trigger, then size when compared to my intended purpose like HD VS a CCW gun for example.

I would not forsake the pistol I want just to get it in a specific caliber. This may well be because I've got 18 handguns and most of the current calibers covered, but it's more likely because I believe that all the modern defensive rounds with good ammo perform about the same.

Honestly if I didn't reload, I'd stick with 9mm, buy ammo in bulk and shoot the chit out of it. IMHO, the dividends you get from practice far outweigh any difference in caliber effectiveness. I doubt there's a coroner on the planet that could tell the difference between a .40 and a 357S hole without finding a bullet. Same thing with a target, doubt anybody shot with either would be able to tell the difference.

Both of my 357S are converted .40s (HK P2000 & SIG 226), both use factory 357S barrels. Neither have ever experienced a reliability issue. For both HK and SIG 357S/.40 conversions, are simple barrel swaps, the mags are the same. One thing to keep an eye on is you may have a POA VS POI change swapping between barrels. My SIG is just slightly lower POI (due to faster 124s/125s vs .40s as they exit the barrel) and my HK is slightly lower and left than with the 357S barrel in.

Unlike some (apparently) I have zero issues reloading 357S, and using Dillon carbide dies, it's just as easy as reloading any other caliber, and as I pointed out earlier, actually cheaper than .40 due to the cheaper projectiles. One thing I do use the .40 barrels for is any time I might not get my 357S brass back, because .40 brass is easier to come by. Since I own my own range, that's normally when I take a class. The rest of the time my .40 barrels sit idle, except when I'm using a .40 CAL Laserlyte training cartridge, or somebody wants to try out a .40 at my place.

I think 357S shoots "better" other guys don't. In the end you're going to have to assume some "risk". If you do get a pistol with conversion barrel, the worse is you're out a couple hundred at most.

Chuck
 
H D = my 45's . I have seen to many feral pigs get up after being shot with the 357 . I had one get up after hitting with 270. then the 45 . That's when I got the 50 A E .
I start my nephews nieces shooting with the 22 lr auto . then the 25 ACP . Next they either go to the 380 APC or 9 .
Then they either step up or decide they don't want anything bigger .
2 nieces and 2 nephews will shoot the 357 and 45 - but don't really like them .
 
I like 357 Sig for CCW mainly because each magazine weighs less.

I usually do 10 rounds of 165-180grn .40 or 10 rounds of 125 357 Sig.

Per magazine you can actually tell the difference in weight.

357 is actually a pretty nice round for distance shooting as well (OT side note).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top