9mm VS. 357 Sig. FOR HOME/SELF DEFENSE?

[Hit_Factor]

I carry a Glock 17 with WW 9mmP 115gr JHP +p+ loads. Since 1989.

Probably time to shoot that stuff and buy a new box

 

[flyskater]

I reload for the 357 sig. My 125gr GDHP chrono's at 1608 with my glock 32. (faster than underwood ammo)
In order for that to equal a 9mm, you'll need a 9mm +++ppp+++ ammo. Loud as heck though.

 

[Certaindeaf]

I'll bet the paper targets are impressed. I don't know how smart it is to hot load a necked down .40 S&W to beyond +P levels especially for a Gock. The Sig and the .40 are already +P'd out.
9mm can safely handle very high pressures, higher than the .40 and Sig because the case is stronger.

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

I'll bet the paper targets are impressed. I don't know how smart it is to hot load a necked down .40 S&W to beyond +P levels especially for a Gock. The Sig and the .40 are already +P'd out.
9mm can safely handle very high pressures, higher than the .40 and Sig because the case is stronger.

I can think of a few agencies that are just as impressed as the paper targets (Secret Service, IIRC). IMHO the round has it uses.

Now, I am not a reloader here, and don't have any reloading manuals, but something about the above doesn't sound quite right and Wikipedia doesn't quite agree (I know its not a good source but...).

Max Pressure for .357= 40,000 psi
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.357_SIG)

Max Pressure for .40= 35,000 psi
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.40_S&W)

Max Pressure for 9mm= 34,084 psi
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9×19mm_Parabellum)

As I understand it, .357 Sig is not just a necked 40. I was told that the .357 cases are little thicker than the .40 to account for the bottleneck(?) and/or increased pressure. It is my understanding that you can get into some serious "ka-boom" territory if you try to neck a .40 to .357 Sig.
I encourage anyone on here to set me straight, though. I would be very interested in learning more about this stuff.

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

Case Thickness?

So i subtracted the bullet diameter from the neck diameter and got this:

.357
Case Thickness (Neck Diameter-Bullet Diameter)= .026
.40
Case Thickness (Neck Diameter-Bullet Diameter)= .023
9mm
Case Thickness (Neck Diameter-Bullet Diameter)= 0.25

And it looks like the .40 does have a thinner case thickness. So now I am curious as to if .002 makes a significant difference in the way a cartridge handles pressures.
Please bear with me, I am still trying to learn here...

 

[AABEN]

Why not a 40 ?

 

[56hawk]

So i subtracted the bullet diameter from the neck diameter and got this:

It's the base that's important not the neck. Found this picture that shows 9mm vs 40, but couldn't find 357 Sig:

 

[tipoc]

I'm attaching two reports from workshops held by an ammo manufacturer (Speer/Federal) for several police agencies in 2008 and 2009 in Colorado and Montana. In the tests 9mm, 357 Sig, 40 S&W, 45acp and .223 ammo was fired into or through several media (auto glass, sheet rock, etc.) and into ballistic gel.

The results are instructive and give a good look at some of the characteristics of modern ammo. You also see an indicator of the different performance of the rounds used.

Ft. Collins, Colorado 2008

http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_D...dBallisticsWorkshops/Ft_CollinsPoliceDpmt.pdf

Butte, Montana 2009

http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/FedWoundBallisticsWorkshops/Butte_WBW_5_27_09.pdf

tipoc

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

I'm attaching two reports from workshops held by an ammo manufacturer (Speer/Federal) for several police agencies in 2008 and 2007 in Colorado and Montana. In the tests 9mm, 357 Sig, 40 S&W, 45acp and .223 ammo was fired into or through several media (auto glass, sheet rock, etc.) and into ballistic gel.

The results are instructive and give a good look at some of the characteristics of modern ammo. You also see an indicator of the different performance of the rounds used.

Ft. Collins, Colorado 2007

http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_D...dBallisticsWorkshops/Ft_CollinsPoliceDpmt.pdf

Butte, Montana 2008

http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/FedWoundBallisticsWorkshops/Butte_WBW_5_27_09.pdf

tipoc

Thanks for the info, but that site is blocked at my current location.
Can anyone Summarize it real quick?

It's the base that's important not the neck. Found this picture that shows 9mm vs 40, but couldn't find 357 Sig:

Please forgive my ignorance, but why is that?

 

[56hawk]

Please forgive my ignorance, but why is that?

Because that is where the unsupported part of the case is. Most barrels have a cutout for the extractor and the feed ramp. In these areas the brass is all that is containing the pressure. The rest of the case is just a gasket and the pressure is contained by the steel barrel.

 

[AK103K]

Max Pressure for .357= 40,000 psi
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.357_SIG)

Max Pressure for .40= 35,000 psi
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.40_S&W)

Max Pressure for 9mm= 34,084 psi
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9×19mm_Parabellum)

Standard 9mm is spec'd at 35000psi, +p is 38500, and +P+ is 40000psi, or at least according to the engineer at Speer I talked to.

He also stated that bullets of a similar weight (124-125 grains), loaded to the same pressures (40000), will give similar performance. If hes right, and it sounds reasonable to me, then +P+ 9mm and 357SIG should work basically the same.

As I understand it, .357 Sig is not just a necked 40. I was told that the .357 cases are little thicker than the .40 to account for the bottleneck(?) and/or increased pressure. It is my understanding that you can get into some serious "ka-boom" territory if you try to neck a .40 to .357 Sig.
I encourage anyone on here to set me straight, though. I would be very interested in learning more about this stuff.

I think its probably more of a necked down 10mm. What happens when you neck down a .40 to 357SIG, the case will come up 3-4 thousandths short.

Ive loaded a lot of 357SIG, and have inadvertently, sized, loaded, and then fired .40 brass in a 357SIG, and on more than one occasion. Nothing bad happened when it fired, and I probably never would have noticed, except that while reloading the cases again, I just happened to notice the .40 head stamp on a 357SIG case. I have no idea as to how many times that case had been fired, but it was likely a number of times.

The problem with shooting 357SIG in an area where there is .40S&W brass present, is that its very difficult to tell them apart unless you look closely at each piece of brass. I used to size my brass first through a .40 carbide sizer, and then a standard 357SIG sizing die. The .40 cases will go right up into a 357SIG die, and come out looking , and for all intents and purposes, being a 357SIG case. When youre loading 3-500 rounds at a time, even when handling the brass multiple times during the process, its very easy for the .40s to slip through.

 

[2zulu1]

One of the selling points for duty 357 SIG carry has been its performance against auto glass/steel.

Enter Hornady's Critical Duty 9mm 135gr +P ammunition, it passed all FBI protocol tests;

http://m.hornady.com/store/9MM-LUGER-P-135-gr-FlexLock-Critical-DUTY/

FWIW, this Hornady ammunition can be purchased in 50 round boxes for less than Hornady's retail 25 round price.

Ranger 9mm T/bonded ammunition also performs heads up with the 357 SIG, especially through heavy clothing.

 

[tipoc]

Thanks for the info, but that site is blocked at my current location.
Can anyone Summarize it real quick?

It's best to review the information for oneself...but quickly...

9mm, 40 and 45 acp all perform on a par with .357 Sig with certain Federal and Speer bullets in a variety of weights through a variety of the FBIs barrier protocol. Not all the tests were done with all weight bullets but the test procedures and results are useful information.

tipoc

 

[Fiv3r]

It sounds like the OP is going with a .40 which makes a little more fiscal sense to me than the .357Sig.

I have NO problem with a quality 9mm for Self/Home defense. I used to keep the .357 Mag handy but decided that the blast and report was just WAY too much for indoors. Out in the woods, my 6.5" .357 Blackhawk is king. However, out in the wilds of the urban jungle, I rather prefer a nice subcompact 9mm Glock. Controllable, cost effective, more firepower, etc.

At home, I actually like the 1911. Chunky easily controllable pistol that isn't as deafening as the .357.

 

[OilyPablo]

My main bed side semiauto is a Sig P229 in 357SIG. Mainly because I shoot so well with the gun and how it's NEVER had a misfeed of any variety. It does take practice. I want that little extra firepower in hand gun before I can pick up a rifle. 9mm and .45ACP are fine, but the cases of 9mm coming up short do not instill confidence at any level, for me.

I don't at all get the recoil and flinch comments. The round is very easy in the recoil department, sorta loud as some say, but not AR-15 loud.

 

[Elessar]

I don't think you really gain anything with .357 sig under most SD circumstances using JHP rounds. You get higher velocity but that usually means less penatration due to faster expansion. Certainly not enough benefit to justify higher blast and recoil.

124 to 147 grain 9mm at moderate velocity seem to be the best performers.



http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm#9mm

 

[otasan56]

Probably time to shoot that stuff and buy a new box

The G17 is 23 years old, but the ammo is two years old!

 

[mdauben]

I've wanted a Sig Saur P266 DAK in .357 Sig for years. The .357 Sig was one of those cartridges that just facinated me since it came out. Very high "cool factor".

I think either one would be a good choice for self defence. Honestly, though, I'm not sure you would see any significant real-world difference between a 125gr .357 Sig and a 124gr 9mm +P round from one of the better manufacturers. Cool as the .357 Sig may be, the 9mm is going to be cheaper, easier to find and probably just as effective.

 

[481]

The G17 is 34 years old, but the ammo is two years old!

Wow.

How'd you get one that was made in 1978? (2012 - 34 = 1978)

They weren't made 'til 1980 and weren't imported in to the US until 1986.

 

[GreyCoupe]

Concur with earlier posts; get what you shoot well. Poor shot placement loses. Practice with both, and decide.

 

[razorback2003]

I like the 357 sig round. I think it has less recoil than 40 cal in similar guns. The problem is 357 sig ammo is generally more expensive than 40 and of course more expensive than 9mm.

A light 357 sig pistol would make a great back up to deer hunt.

I pick 9mm just because the ammo is cheaper. If i could afford to shoot 357 sig ammo a lot I would own one.

 

[Scoob]

Go with a 9mm or .40. From my own reloading adventures I've found that .40 can do anything 357 sig can do with lite bullets and out-performs it with heavier bullets.

I personally like using sub-sonic loads for the bed side. A 147gr 9mm or 180gr .40 would be just the ticket. I LOVE the 180gr HST .40 load. It expands into a monster.

I'm not a big .45 fan but the more power you can get without going super-sonic the better. The bigger, heavier bullet will give you more thump without the velocity.

EDIT: Wow my 69th post in 10 years. I'm on a roll lol.

 

[wv109323]

If you put 2 or 3 well placed rounds into a home invader he will not ask you " was that a .357 Sig or a plain 9mm."
It is all about shot placement.

 

[otasan56]

Wow.

How'd you get one that was made in 1978? (2012 - 34 = 1978)

They weren't made 'til 1980 and weren't imported in to the US until 1986.

My mistake - I got my G17 in 1989. That makes it 23 years.

 

[lobo9er]

unless someone else is buying me ammo supplies I'd go 9mm. Also as RC said extra flash and bang if you had to use it might not be worth it.